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?

[ST88]

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).

Not exactly. Maybe I wasn't clear. There is an objective truth without an observer. But what we perceive to be objective truth may or may not be. But when it conforms to all other ideas about what what we expect objective truth might be, then it might as well be in terms of how we experience it, regardless of whether or not it really is.

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.

Objectivity is always the goal. It may never be attainable in the way that you define it, and we may never know if we are achieving it or not. But we strive nonetheless. I would say that spirituality is even less of a tool for achieving objective truth. Just to name one reason for this: there are too many ways to interpret so-called spiritual events.

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”.

Sorry. I did not mean to trivialize. I was trying to say that science uses verifiable tools and methods in addition to elbow grease in order to find out what's going on, whereas spirituality takes the route that advocates connection via contemplation and repetitive thought gestures. On further reflection, including on my own experience with meditation, I guess that is hard work.

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.

I agree here, but would say that understanding does not go beyond the material plane.

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.

This is interesting if only because the sameness applies on the sub-atomic level. When you get to the physics of atomic interactions, there are most certainly differences between the center of a star and the center of a cupcake. Of course, this is because I exist on the material plane, and the two things mean different things to my existence.

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.

You can't state that science does not provide human happiness therefore it is irrelevant. Science is only measurement. We exist as humans -- that is our predicament. We use science to explain this. But even when we aren't using calipers, electron microscopes, and geiger counters, we are still using science in our everyday lives. That there is no technology on the island does not imply that science isn't being used, only that technological progress does not matter to these people. If you eat a berry and it makes you sick, you konw not to eat that berry again. This is science. If you stay out in the sun and your skin discolors and starts to be painful, you know not to stay out in the sun in the future. This is science. Gauging the amount of fish by the tides is applying your admittedly limited knowledge of fish population dynamics to the dinner table. Stretching dried animal hides around the bones of dead animals to make thumping sounds that are pleasing to the ear is applying the scientific knowledge of what material can be stretched and what materials can be used to be stretched around. Without these things, we are left to guessing which plants will kill us, where the fish are, and what sounds can be made to create pleasing music.

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.

Yes, you're right about science being unsuitable for metaphysics. I'm a bit confused about "intuititve, direct understanding". Intuitive and direct have somewhat opposing meanings in my vocabulary -- could you explain this a little more.

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?

They are different experiences, both scientific. The paper explanation helps with developing theories of zero-gravity behavior of other objects; and the experiential explanation helps the student understand what happens to h/h own body, and therefore what happens to other objects via generalization of that experience.

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.

Not possible.

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

There seems to be a contradiction here.

My intention here was to show that science "offers" objective realities, because that is how we understand them. Actual objective truth as you describe it is not attainable because we are trapped in these meat puppets that force us to have a perspective on things. In my opinion, there is no escape from this.

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?

I was trying to distinguish between objective truth as reality and truth as perceived reality. I probably didn't do a good job of keeping all the terms together.

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.

Jeez. All that blather for nothing?

[BeHereNow]

I'm a bit confused about "intuitive, direct understanding". Intuitive and direct have somewhat opposing meanings in my vocabulary -- could you explain this a little more.

I’m confused at your confusion.
My Encarta dictionary shows the first meaning of “intuitive” as 1) known automatically; known directly and instinctively, without being discovered or consciously perceived.

Note that this does not say there is not “groundwork” performed. Subjective truth lays the groundwork for an intuitive understanding of the objective truth.

I agree here, but would say that understanding does not go beyond the material plane.

I agree with you here since I do not see a separate spiritual and material plane.

You can't state that science does not provide human happiness therefore it is irrelevant.

I do not state this. Nothing irrelevant about it. I just say it is not the be all and end all.

That there is no technology on the island does not imply that science isn't being used.

I did not say no science, I said minimal science. The science you reference is practiced by aboriginal peoples, certainly the least scientific or technological peoples on the earth. As a matter of fact, posed the question “Are aboriginals scientifically minded?”, I might answer “no”. By your definition, where there are people there is science. Science is reduced to common sense.

[hamilrob]

I think you're going to have to define what you mean by "objective" and "subjective".

I think you're right, Hannah Joy. I would venture to say that Objective truth is truth that I could easily share with others. It is sort of like the latin "a priori" truth:

1 a : DEDUCTIVE b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions (Merriam-Webster)

Certain universally recognized factors can render truths objective because of their self-evident qualities. If I place my hand on a hot stove, I will sustain a burn. If I walk in front of a speeding truck and get hit, I will die or get badly injured. Objective truth may not be as exotic as subjective truth because it lacks the advantage of personal experience and imagination, but it is better suited for universal acceptance.

Subjective Truth is like the other latin phrase, "a posteriori" truth.

1 : INDUCTIVE
2 : relating to or derived by reasoning from observed facts (Merriam-Webster)

"Life is Beautiful"; "God is Great;" The Republican Administration is good for the Nation": "America is being led by the hand of God". These could be examples of Subjective truths. Subjective truths can be passed off as absolute because they are induced and offer no concrete evidence from which one can judge the verity of the truth.

OK, so in Objective truth, all you have to do is observe the situation and deduce directly from your observation what the truth is.

In Subjective Truth, you have to figure out what the situation is telling you about truth. You have to use your reasoning which may be influenced by your personal experience and could therefore be different from the conclusions of another whose personal experience is different.

I think you can lack information and still have some appreciable understanding of an objective truth. All you have to do is be open to changing what you thought you knew about the truth when you acquire more information. Subjective truth can reject new information if it doesn't change the feeling behind the personal experience that characterizes that truth.

This is why something like a bodily resurrection may never be disbelieved by someone linked to it by Faith rather than facts, most of which will not support death being reversed (in the case of true, brain/heart stoppage, failure whatever.) Let's rule out "near death" experiences for argument's sake. I have heard it said that if jesus was God, he could have done anything, including coming back to life. That is a subjective truth based on the Faith that Jesus was God and God is omnipotent.

I think you can just about make what you want out of subjective truth because in a free society you're allowed your own opinions, educated or not.

I suppose I should have given more examples, but I wanted to be brief.

I think (going out on a limb here) ALL religion is founded upon subjective truth and is therefore open to the charge of irrationalism. That may be a good or bad thing, but that's my opinion anyway.

[hamilrob]

Not exactly. Maybe I wasn't clear. There is an objective truth without an observer. But what we perceive to be objective truth may or may not be. But when it conforms to all other ideas about what what we expect objective truth might be, then it might as well be in terms of how we experience it, regardless of whether or not it really is.

This sounds more like subjective truth.