Can objective truth be incomplete?

[BeHereNow]

Two assumptions, which may or may not be true:
1) Objective truth must contain only true understanding or knowledge.
2) If there is any falseness, objective truth has been lost.

Can objective truth be incomplete? That is, do I have objective truth if I understand and know only true things about an existing thing, or law of science, but there are other true things I am not aware of?

If, for example, I have true knowledge of a liquid, knowing and understanding many of its properties and characteristics, but I do not know the freezing point or boiling point, do I hold subjective or objective truth about the liquid?

Similarly, if a given law has three points of predictability, and I am only aware of two of them, is my knowledge subjective or objective?

It seems that if I do not know every single thing that is knowable about a particular thing, then my knowledge is incomplete and therefore not objective.
Surely this complete knowledge, which objective truth might require, is not possible (even by intuitiveness).

If we say 100% complete knowledge is not necessary for objective truth, do we only require that we have no false beliefs? Might we have objective truth if we are only aware of 1% of the total possible knowledge?

[mrmufin]

Well.... not exactly. When you get into the purposes behind some mathematical tools, you're really getting into areas that mathematicians may describe as purely conceptual, but are actually rooted in real-world problems.

That's fair enough; I'm not going to dispute that a hefty portion of maths are rooted in real-world problems. But... we can take away the applications and the axioms still stand. Whether logarithms are defined into existence or are arrived at by necessity is somewhat inconsequential beyond mathematical history. Once the logarithm is sufficiently defined, we can apply it as necessary.

Before we even get to that stage, certain ground rules are defined into existence (the algebraic order of operations, for example).

I say all this to help show that matematics, at however high a level it might work, is used to describe and measure the universe, and does not operate independently from it.

I'm not trying to dispute the usefulness or applicability of mathematics. However, we should be careful to not confuse the map with the destination, in which the afforementioned compound interest makes for a good example. Using the algorithm described on the back of my bank statement, I can (theoretically) compute my account balance at any given moment. My only means to confirm the result is by checking with the bank and seeing if they get the same result when they perform the calculation. I can not go and count the money to verify the result because the money itself isn't growing; it's just a ledger entry computed at fixed intervals.

Compare this with, say, the exponential growth of bacteria in a petri dish. While we describe the growth mathematically, the mathematical description is derived from empirical data. In the banking example, the algorithm is the application, and the algorithm is constructed using a consistent, objective foundation of axioms, definitions, propositions and order of operations.

Mathematics is not a field where you get invention, it's a field where you get discovery.

It's also a field where bridging the chasm between conjecture and theorem can be a tedious, time consuming task based on rigorous, absolute proof. Because we can make true statements which can not be corroborated with observational data (er, within the physical realm), I'll submit that mathematics is, ultimately, not bound by reality.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

Mathematics is not a field where you get invention, it's a field where you get discovery.

It's also a field where bridging the chasm between conjecture and theorem can be a tedious, time consuming task based on rigorous, absolute proof. Because we can make true statements which can not be corroborated with observational data (er, within the physical realm), I'll submit that mathematics is, ultimately, not bound by reality.

All this to show that, though mathematics may be a kind of truth, it need not be observable. But is this really the definition of observe that BeHereNow is talking about? Just because a math may exist in a conceptual way but not have a physical referent to help us make sense of it, does that make it any less observable, and therefore any less real? The drawings of Escher are, themselves, real, but many depict situations which are not possible in a rational universe. And yet we can (with some difficulty) conceptualize them on their own terms. Does this make them any more or less real than photographs?

[ST88]

When I commented on objective truth as being an unrealistic goal, my primary focus was on truth. While I think objectivity is @ least theoretically possible, it is the idea of objective truth that i had issue with. I can believe in a willingness to be objective, and a desire for the truth. What I cannot accept is the capability of a person to attain "full truth"(whatever that is).

When we begin to label things as truth or untrue we define those terms by our personal understanding and awareness. You cannot judge an event from a perspective you simply have no frame of reference with. Until I have a frame of reference for infinity, all I can do is the best I can with the limited grasp on truth that I think I have.

And this is exactly the point. Is there some sort of "Supreme Truth" about things that will forever elude us in a maddening asymptotic rush? What does it mean to know the truth about infinity? From what I gather, we have a pretty good handle on the concept already. I'm not sure that a perfect knowlege about infinity -- in the manner you speak of -- is even necessary. What color is infinity?

Knowledge about subjects and concepts need not be the result of direct measurement. Much of it can be -- and is -- inferred from the data, such as a star's companion object detected from the wobble in its path.

[BeHereNow]

St88: If I may, my own understanding of truth vs. reality is that truth is a human concept based on a consensus of observations, whereas reality is that objectivity you speak of that exists whether it is perceived or not.

This idea that “truth is a human concept” does not feel right to me, but I understand what you mean, and it is how the term is generally used. I can’t break free of the thought that truth must coincide with reality. The human concepts of truth do at time differ from reality. If it differs from reality, I can not call it truth. I suppose I have the big T Truth and everyday small t truth.

St88: The objectiveness of truth is only as strong as its perceivers -- witness the God/No God debate. But the reality is that there is an answer to this.

I seem split between the theoretical and the ideal. I feel truth should not be constrained by the observer, but in practice society does recognize “objective truths” which are what I want to call subjective truths.
Is it true that your objective truths might differ from reality? Objective truths might change? Better or more complete observations might change truths? Objective truths are as society sees them today?

st88: I don't mean to say that truth is exclusively subjective, however. The whole idea is caught up in how we view the world vs. how it is when no one's looking at it. Are these two different things? They don't have to be. See below.

You do seem to say objective truth has (or can have) a subjective quality to it.

St88: I would disagree that an observation that is incomplete is subjective. I don't think that does the concept of subjectivity justice. We shouldn't forget that, as observers, we have our own internal masks and overlays that cause us to interpret observations in particular ways. But if the incompleteness of observation occurs on the measurement end, it is still an objective measurement. The very fact of its incompleteness is subjective, because "completeness" is a concept we ascribe to the measurements, but objectivity is not affected.

Yes, this is why I started the thread. I feel that objective truth can be incomplete, but wasn’t sure others would agree with me.
I still feel objective truth can have no falseness, but that subjective truth may or may not.

I say that "Science offers objective realities" because of my previous statement about subjectivity. Incompleteness and subjectivity are two different things. There is an objective reality about the origin of the universe. Science does not say, According to Science, here's how it might have happened. Instead it says, Here's how it might have happened. I realize this is a subtle distinction. But the former implies a subjectivity based on how Science operates. Well, Science operates on objectivity. Its subjectiveness is its pursuit of total objectivity.

I just do not see science attaining total objectivity. It has a decidedly scientific approach to reality.
I see a difference between what truly exists and what science attempts to identity as existing.

I think you are falling victim to the very temporal nature of thought that you are arguing against. By saying that the apple on the table is not the same apple as you bought at the store, you are ascrbing to it an extra-temporal nature of appleness which it does not possess. By denying its identity as that same apple, you are also denying its very nature. Because all things are temporary, we must, by our own very definitions of them, include their temporariness. You say that eventually the apple will disappear, and so it will return to the earth from which it came. But it was still an apple by any objective measure of what an apple might be or be called. As locked into our temporal morass as we are, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that everything else is also. In other words, the truth of the apple includes its temporal nature because that is how the language is used to define it. It is even most definitely the same apple because the term same implies this temporal nature.

You seem to agree with me that all things are transient, but even suggest that all others agree with us. I find that most persons view many things as if they were permanent. They judge things based on their own existence. If it never changes in their lifetime, it never changes, period.

Anyone can know objective reality, and everyone does.

I don’t understand in what sense you mean this.
On a superficial level we all have a common understanding of language, so that 10 people who look at a tree all say “I see a tree”, but are you saying they all see the same tree? There is no subjective interpretation of the tree? Would they not describe the tree differently?

[ST88]

This idea that “truth is a human concept” does not feel right to me, but I understand what you mean, and it is how the term is generally used. I can’t break free of the thought that truth must coincide with reality. The human concepts of truth do at time differ from reality. If it differs from reality, I can not call it truth. I suppose I have the big T Truth and everyday small t truth.

It's true that human concepts often differ from reality. But it's also true that there are human concepts that coincide with reality. When I say that truth is a human concept, I don't mean that there is a Truth that is separate from objective reality, I mean that the idea of Truth is a human construct designed to placate our sense of objective reality. And by calling something "true" we do not need to be limited by objective characteristics. Seeing in color, for example, is strictly a phenomenon that is dictated by the biology of the observer. If an object appears red to us, it does not mean that it is red in an objective sense, it means, objectively, that it absorbs every other color except red, because it repels red light wavelengths. However, because our language is constructed so as to describe this situation (of "redness"), it is no less true because it points to the same objective reality.

St88: The objectiveness of truth is only as strong as its perceivers -- witness the God/No God debate. But the reality is that there is an answer to this.

I seem split between the theoretical and the ideal. I feel truth should not be constrained by the observer, but in practice society does recognize “objective truths” which are what I want to call subjective truths.
Is it true that your objective truths might differ from reality? Objective truths might change? Better or more complete observations might change truths? Objective truths are as society sees them today?

It's not quite that simple. I don't mean to say that "truth" can be either objectively true or objectively false. I mean to say that there are degrees of perception that either point directly at objective truth or create some kind of fuzzy fat arrow that goes in the general direction of objective truth.

Objective truths are reality, we should not differ there. Objective truths change only insofar as measurable properties change. But objective truths are changed by society. Consider the day of the week. Right now. Is it Sunday? Monday? Tuesday? In an ideal objective reality, the days of the week are meaningless. And yet, we, as humans have set up a system of measuring time based on repeatable time units. Absolutely arbitrary, but I can say with some certainty that today is Sunday (or Monday, etc.), and be reasonably confident that it is a true statement. The positioning of the Earth in this particular portion of celestial space is decreed as Sunday. There is another spot in space that will assume the mantel of next Sunday.

But if next year, the entire world decides that we should measure time in 10-day weeks, then that will become a new objective reality.

st88: I don't mean to say that truth is exclusively subjective, however. The whole idea is caught up in how we view the world vs. how it is when no one's looking at it. Are these two different things? They don't have to be. See below.

You do seem to say objective truth has (or can have) a subjective quality to it.

Only insofar as we must use language to describe it. Language is inherently subjective no matter how objective we might think we are being when we use it.

I just do not see science attaining total objectivity. It has a decidedly scientific approach to reality. I see a difference between what truly exists and what science attempts to identify as existing.

For me, the endeavor of science is to identify objective realities wherever they may occur.

You seem to agree with me that all things are transient, but even suggest that all others agree with us. I find that most persons view many things as if they were permanent. They judge things based on their own existence. If it never changes in their lifetime, it never changes, period.

I think this is largely a problem of interpretation. Most people would agree that things change, but their tendency is to act as if things don't change. This has less to do with their philosophy than it has to do with a kind of comfortable inertia that we are all susceptible to. As humans, we tend to take things for granted, and we tend to generalize our experiences towards other experiences we may have. When we pass by a tree while taking a morning walk, we notice it as a tree. After a few months of the same walk, we start to expect it to be there. After a year or so, we may not even notice it anymore. In five years, when it falls, we may not even realize what is different until we focus. It's just human nature.

Anyone can know objective reality, and everyone does.

I don’t understand in what sense you mean this.
On a superficial level we all have a common understanding of language, so that 10 people who look at a tree all say “I see a tree”, but are you saying they all see the same tree? There is no subjective interpretation of the tree? Would they not describe the tree differently?

Objective reality is what we can verify using experience, witness reports, measurement, and inference. All ten people see the same tree. They will all describe it differently based on cultural assumptions, experience with trees, vocabulary, etc. The interpretations will naturally be present: "I see an alder" "I see an old tree" "I see a deciduous tree in leaf," etc., as will the subjective interpretations. But the referent for all ten people is still the same tree. The tree exists in an objective way regardless if any observer is present. But just because one person says it is ugly and another person says it is beautiful, it doesn't mean that anything about the truth of the tree changes. It is both ugly and beautiful in subjective experience. With no observer, however, such subjective terms are meaningless. And yet they are still true. This is human contrived truth. The seemingly objective terms "alder" "old" and "deciduous" are all nevertheless subjective terms because that is how humans have defined the existence of the tree. They are no less subjective than "ugly" or "beautiful" in terms of the existence of the tree. Because there is an observer -- or multiple observers -- the Truth of the tree must be defined in terms of the observer. The objective reality, in this case, of the other nine observers, will naturally be missing from the tenth observer. But does that tenth observer really need the other nine vantage points? Or the infinite number of vantage points possible to view the tree: from above, from the inside, from the roots, etc.? Objective reality need only be perceived from the point(s) at which detection of it is possible.

[BeHereNow]

It's not quite that simple. I don't mean to say that "truth" can be either objectively true or objectively false. I mean to say that there are degrees of perception that either point directly at objective truth or create some kind of fuzzy fat arrow that goes in the general direction of objective truth

.
Is that fuzzy fat arrow subjective truth? If not, I need help.

Objective reality is what we can verify using experience, witness reports, measurement, and inference.

But what is acceptable verification? Do we simply we use the “reasonable person” rule?
How much agreement must there be among persons?

Is it possible for objective truth to be false? That is, recognized by the masses as objective truth, but in reality, false, not coinciding with reality. You seem to say objective truth will never be false, but how is this guaranteed?

Can subjective truth be false?

Is it true to say that the words and concepts we use to describe the tree [to draw a picture in the mind’s eye] are subjective truths, and therefore are you saying objective truths and subjective truths are mutually exclusive?

All ten people see the same tree. They will all describe it differently based on cultural assumptions, experience with trees, vocabulary, etc. The interpretations (subjectiveness) will naturally be present: "I see an alder" "I see an old tree" "I see a deciduous tree in leaf," etc., as will the subjective interpretations. But the referent for all ten people is still the same tree. The tree exists in an objective way regardless if any observer is present. But just because one person says it is ugly and another person says it is beautiful, it doesn't mean that anything about the truth of the tree changes. It is both ugly and beautiful in subjective experience. With no observer, however, such subjective terms are meaningless. And yet they are still true. This is human contrived truth.
The seemingly objective terms "alder" "old" and "deciduous" are all nevertheless subjective terms because that is how humans have defined the existence of the tree. They are no less subjective than "ugly" or "beautiful" in terms of the existence of the tree. Because there is an observer -- or multiple observers -- the Truth of the tree must be defined in terms of the observer.

The objective reality, in this case, of the other nine observers, will naturally be missing from the tenth observer. But does that tenth observer really need the other nine vantage points? Or the infinite number of vantage points possible to view the tree: from above, from the inside, from the roots, etc.? Objective reality need only be perceived from the point(s) at which detection of it is possible.

Are you saying all ten observers identify not only their subjective impressions of the tree (each being slightly different), but also identify an objective reality of the tree, also each being slightly different?

[ST88]

It's not quite that simple. I don't mean to say that "truth" can be either objectively true or objectively false. I mean to say that there are degrees of perception that either point directly at objective truth or create some kind of fuzzy fat arrow that goes in the general direction of objective truth

.
Is that fuzzy fat arrow subjective truth? If not, I need help.

I apologize if I'm not being clear through my flippancy. As I see it, perception is the constraining factor. If the perception is clear enough, objective truth can be achieved.

Objective reality is what we can verify using experience, witness reports, measurement, and inference.

But what is acceptable verification? Do we simply we use the “reasonable person” rule?
How much agreement must there be among persons?

Ask scientists how much data they need before a hypothesis becomes a theory, then before a theory becomes an accepted fact.

Is it possible for objective truth to be false? That is, recognized by the masses as objective truth, but in reality, false, not coinciding with reality. You seem to say objective truth will never be false, but how is this guaranteed?

Objective truth will never be false, by definition. Objectivity implies that not only does the observer not matter, but that there need not be an observer. Even in the case of the red object, which requires an observer to notice the redness of it, the situation of redness describes the behavior of different wavelengths of light to such a degree that it can be translated to an observer who cannot see red.

"Recognition by the masses" is irrelevant to objective truth. Things just are. Truths can be mistaken as objective truths, when they are in fact false. People have vastly different takes on history. Some people deny the Holocaust. This is not the mere semantics of the state of an apple. These are divergent stories of objective truths.

A logical positivist favorite example of unknowable information is the number of hairs on the beard of Caesar when he was assassinated. This number will never be known. But there is a number that is the correct number. The correct number is objective truth. It does not change if I guess 300 or 350. I may be wrong, but I will never know if I am. I can therefore never arrive at the objective truth of this situation. It is closed off forever. I can, however, count the number of hairs in my own beard, if I so chose. Before I start counting, there is a number. This number will not change throughout the counting process (barring changes in health). I can achieve this objective truth because I am able to use my own perceptions in order to arrive at the number.

Can subjective truth be false?

Sure it can.

Is it true to say that the words and concepts we use to describe the tree [to draw a picture in the mind’s eye] are subjective truths, and therefore are you saying objective truths and subjective truths are mutually exclusive?

No. They are simultaneously subjective and objective. This is one of the properties of language. Once you define something, or you describe it in terms that others will understand and recognize, you have objectified it. However, these definitions and terms are themselves arbitrary, even if we all agree on what they mean. Language is a translator between concept and referent. There is the concept of the tree, which is based on the description of the tree, which is based on the tree itself. We do not have to have a literal tree in front of us in order to get it into our heads, because language allows us to transfer the concept from one mind to another. But language has no inherent meaning -- words are simply placeholders for actual referents and concepts.

It is therefore possible to transfer the idea of an objective truth from one person to another using subjective truths, without the second person having experienced the original object.

All ten people see the same tree...
The objective reality, in this case, of the other nine observers, will naturally be missing from the tenth observer. But does that tenth observer really need the other nine vantage points? Or the infinite number of vantage points possible to view the tree: from above, from the inside, from the roots, etc.? Objective reality need only be perceived from the point(s) at which detection of it is possible.

Are you saying all ten observers identify not only their subjective impressions of the tree (each being slightly different), but also identify an objective reality of the tree, also each being slightly different?

Sort of. They all have the different impressions of the objective reality of the tree, each of them suffering different vantage points. But each of their impressions of the tree are correct, each one has achieved objective reality within the context of their vantage point. In the case of the tree, I do not need to see all sides of it in order to glean that it is a tree, it is an alder, merely because my experience tells me that this is what an alder looks like.

Your question on whether objective reality can be incomplete really depends on the measuring sticks. Who says what is complete? Can it ever be complete? My view is that it is not only possible to perceive objective reality incompletely, it is necessary. Our own perceptual limitations constrain what we can comprehend and quantify, and therefore objective truths, for us, will always be colored by these limitations. How can we ever know that what we believe to be objective truths are in fact such? We have no third party to help us verify our suspicions.

[BeHereNow]

Is that fuzzy fat arrow subjective truth? If not, I need help.

I apologize if I'm not being clear through my flippancy. As I see it, perception is the constraining factor. If the perception is clear enough, objective truth can be achieved.

But if perception is not clear enough, what do we have? An imperfect objective truth (oxymoron), subjective truth, or neither?

BeHereNow wrote:
Quote:
Objective reality is what we can verify using experience, witness reports, measurement, and inference.

But what is acceptable verification? Do we simply we use the “reasonable person” rule?
How much agreement must there be among persons?

Ask scientists how much data they need before a hypothesis becomes a theory, then before a theory becomes an accepted fact.

Concerning that tree, do we have objective truth about it? Can we use the hypothesis-theory-tested theory-fact, process on other trees, and apply this objective truth to our particular tree (can we generalize)? This would of course be objective truth about “treeness”, but many facets might differ on our particular tree (until they are proven).

Objective truth will never be false, by definition. Objectivity implies that not only does the observer not matter, but that there need not be an observer. Even in the case of the red object, which requires an observer to notice the redness of it, the situation of redness describes the behavior of different wavelengths of light to such a degree that it can be translated to an observer who cannot see red.

"Recognition by the masses" is irrelevant to objective truth. Things just are. Truths can be mistaken as objective truths, when they are in fact false.

It seems we have two types of objective truths: The objective truth which is an accurate representation of reality, and therefore cannot (will not) be false, but also the (incorrectly) recognized objective truth, which is false.

People have vastly different takes on history. Some people deny the Holocaust. This is not the mere semantics of the state of an apple. These are divergent stories of objective truths.

But language has no inherent meaning -- words are simply placeholders for actual referents and concepts.

It is therefore possible to transfer the idea of an objective truth from one person to another using subjective truths, without the second person having experienced the original object.

We agree language has no inherent meaning. It is the applying of meaning to meaningless utterances which causes the problem. The sharing of objective truth becomes a difficult (though not impossible) task. This transference of knowledge and understanding is what my Zen is about. The real objective truth lies not in the words themselves, but in what the words point to. It is like using two dimensional drawings to represent three dimensional objects. I see it as having to take a leap of faith, an intuitive jumping from the subjective to the objective. At times the first person (teacher) can lead the student to experience objective reality, and therefore grasp objective truth, without the use of words. A direct transference.
Can I say the objective truth which is expressed in words is not, in a real sense, the objective truth, merely a two dimensional subjective drawing of the three dimensional truth? Would you agree, or is this too abstract to carry meaning?

How can we ever know that what we believe to be objective truths are in fact such? We have no third party to help us verify our suspicions.

Yes.
Enter the mystical.
This “third party” is the eternal oneness Zen seeks, indeed religion seeks. Religions with a belief in god seek moral objective truths by divine revelation. Zen has no god, so seeks total truth, not just moral. Is there a cosmic Oneness we can all tap into to leap from the subjective to the objective, or is this merely another human contrivance?

Any particular individual may reject any particular objective truth as being false. There is no “irrefutable” proof. The objective truth holder knows that there is always the possibility that his perception is fuzzy. A small amount of faith is necessary to ignore the possibility of falseness and accept objective truth as reality.
Would you agree?

[ST88]

But if perception is not clear enough, what do we have? An imperfect objective truth (oxymoron), subjective truth, or neither?

Because we do not know how clear our perception is at any given stage, objective truth is always a tenuous assumption. And now we get into applied objectivity theory. There should be no dispute that the tree exists independently of an observer. It has its own objective truth. For us to perceive it, we must have clear certainty of vision (Nietzsche's phrase) in addition to understanding. As an ideal objective truth measurement tool, human perception is flawed. But as a measurement tool for the measurements that matter to us, it is ideal. And by matter to us, I mean how the object operates in its space within its environment in terms of us. For these objective truths, we can pat ourselves on the back for having found them. For those truths about the tree that we don't know or which are wrong, they are ideally false, but in practical terms at best inconclusive. Our interests need not be towards achieving a totality of objective truth (which is impossible anyway), but with achieving enough truth to be practical.

Remember: There are things we know we know; there are things we know we don't know; there are things we don't know we know; and there are things we don't know that we don't know.

Concerning that tree, do we have objective truth about it? Can we use the hypothesis-theory-tested theory-fact, process on other trees, and apply this objective truth to our particular tree (can we generalize)? This would of course be objective truth about “treeness”, but many facets might differ on our particular tree (until they are proven).

Generalization is certainly possible, but the trick is knowing where to apply it. A shark looks an awful lot like a dolphin until you start to study it. In terms of living things, DNA analysis is a good deal more effective than morphological inspection. We can achieve objective truth about the DNA, which is relevant to humans because we like to categorize things.

It seems we have two types of objective truths: The objective truth which is an accurate representation of reality, and therefore cannot (will not) be false, but also the (incorrectly) recognized objective truth, which is false.

Objective truth is not a representation of reality, it is the real thing, sans observer. If you like, we can have TRUTHo-ideal and TRUTHo-recognized. But only through exhaustive investigation will we discover if recognized = ideal.

Can I say the objective truth which is expressed in words is not, in a real sense, the objective truth, merely a two dimensional subjective drawing of the three dimensional truth? Would you agree, or is this too abstract to carry meaning?

I would agree with that. The dimensional math might not be quite right, but I think that's the general idea.

How can we ever know that what we believe to be objective truths are in fact such? We have no third party to help us verify our suspicions.

Yes.
Enter the mystical.
This “third party” is the eternal oneness Zen seeks, indeed religion seeks. Religions with a belief in god seek moral objective truths by divine revelation. Zen has no god, so seeks total truth, not just moral. Is there a cosmic Oneness we can all tap into to leap from the subjective to the objective, or is this merely another human contrivance?

Of course, here is where we diverge. I do not believe there is a mystical connection that will allow us to see objective truth in all its glory just by being a part of the connection. In my opinion, perception clear enough to provide knowledge of this sort requires the hard work of looking for it and analyzing the data.

Any particular individual may reject any particular objective truth as being false. There is no “irrefutable” proof. The objective truth holder knows that there is always the possibility that his perception is fuzzy. A small amount of faith is necessary to ignore the possibility of falseness and accept objective truth as reality.
Would you agree?

Not really. Knowing that objective truth is not achievable, and that truth of a practical nature is all that is required of us in order to live our lives is perfectly fine with me. Reasonable explanations for what Truth might be sometimes have an effect on how humans choose to go about their lives, but such explanations require a great deal of effort to be vetted and accepted. Even then they may be false. The pursuit of absolute objective truth without measurement and analysis is a shell game that merely provides more opportunities for falsehoods of different types.

[BeHereNow]

St88: As an ideal objective truth measurement tool, human perception is flawed. But as a measurement tool for the measurements that matter to us, it is ideal. And by matter to us, I mean how the object operates in its space within its environment in terms of us.

By defining objective truths in terms of how it matters to us, you have expressed the objective in subjective terms.
We had agreed that objective truth exists independent of the observer, now you say objective truth is defined in terms of the observer (us).
You also display the bias of science which hinders it from seeing objective truth.
You do not want to brush aside the veil of deception caused by science. You say the tools of humans are ideal for finding objective truth. You place “in terms of us” ahead of objectivity. You claim objectivity is your ultimate goal, but this is not true.

St88: Of course, here is where we diverge. I do not believe there is a mystical connection that will allow us to see objective truth in all its glory just by being a part of the connection.

You trivialize oneness by saying “just being a part of the connection”.

St88: In my opinion, perception clear enough to provide knowledge of this sort requires the hard work of looking for it and analyzing the data.

A small note, I am talking about understanding, not knowledge. I believe we agree understanding is one level higher than simple knowledge. You say hard work and analyzing the data is enough. I say it is not enough, it is only the beginning.

Earlier you discussed the idea of “sameness”. I also have an idea of sameness, but it is quite different than yours. My idea of sameness is that all is the same. We humans are made from the stars. It is all the same.
The goal of Zen is to become one. If I become one with the tree I will understand the tree. I will have true objective understanding, independent of myself or my goals. There is no contradiction between my beliefs and science, except to say science is not objective. The hard work science represents is wonderful, and should be an integral part of objective truth.

As you point out, science attempts to gain objective truth, but does it in terms of the observer. I say in order to peel away this last layer of subjectivity, one needs to step outside of one’s skin, to view the truth from an eternal perspective. It requires an intuitive leap to go from the subjectively biased “objective” truth of science, to the actual objective truth. I translate this to a mystical experience. I know this has a feeling of séance, and that is not the mystical I am referring to. The experience I am talking about is a “Eureka!” experience. An epiphany of sorts.

I find you favor scientific ideals and truth as being far superior to any other type.
On the other hand, I say other ideals and truths are more important. As one example, I might say happiness.
Does science provide human happiness? I would say no.
Certainly science adds to human happiness, but it is not the source. I would say that mankind could be very happy with very minimal science. I would say a group of stranded castaways with no technology could live out their lives very happily.
Given the false dilemma of happiness for mankind, or exceptional science, I choose happiness. We can of course hope for both, but if I must choose, science loses.

I would guess that you believe there are no spiritual truths. On the other hand I believe there are what could only be called spiritual truths. If there are, it is unlikely science as it is practiced today will find them. The intuitive, direct understanding is best suited to the spiritual, but the principles apply to science as well.

How might a teacher impart understanding of zero gravity to a student? Is there any better way than guiding a student through a weightless experience? Is this direct experience of zero gravity inferior to a mathematical explaination?

St88: The pursuit of absolute objective truth without measurement and analysis is a shell game that merely provides more opportunities for falsehoods of different types.

I do not want to replace scientific inquiry with mysticism. I want the mystical to supplement the scientific.

St88: I say that "Science offers objective realities" because . . .
St8: Knowing that objective truth is not achievable

There seems to be a contradiction here.

BHN: Truth might be considered reality. For this discussion I see no distinguishable difference.
St88: If I may, my own understanding of truth vs. reality is that truth is a human concept based on a consensus of observations, whereas reality is that objectivity you speak of that exists whether it is perceived or not. The objectiveness of truth is only as strong as its perceivers.
St88: Objective truths are reality, we should not differ there.

I took your first position, which I understood to mean that truth was only a representation of reality when I said: “The objective truth which is an accurate representation of reality”. Your reply of “Objective truth is not a representation of reality” seems to contradict your earlier statement.
At first you seemed to disagree with my truth-reality comparison, but then you agree. Which?

BHN: Since subjective reality views reality from a perspective, we know that we are only seeing part of reality. A slice of the pie. A limb of the tree. The beginning of the story. An Egg of the batter.
St88: I think you've got the relationships a bit wrong. Viewing reality from a particular perspective results in a subjective reality. This does not equate incomplete observation with subjectivity.

When I say “since subjective reality views reality from a perspective, we know we are seeing a part of reality”, it is an “If…,then…” type statement. If we have subjective, then we have incomplete. You seemed to have changed this around to take it I mean “If incomplete, then subjective”, which is not what I said. Actually, we agree. Subjective truth or reality is always incomplete, but incomplete does not make it subjective.