How can science dismiss subjectivity when everything we know is subjective?

Axioms are subjective. Awkward...

prove it

Incompleteness theorem, retard.

Extraordinary is a subjective term.

Most things in the universe are objective realities a lot of the "subjective" things in life usually have to do with humans and their petty emotions.

Speed of light is = 299 792 458 m / s

Circumference of earth = 24,901 mi

My couch is fucking red

No matter how delusional or how hard you wanna " you cant kno nuffin" these things are objectively true and no matter how bad you want them to change they will always stay the same, if you disagree its called being delusional

>inb4 durr its my version of reality so its true!!!

stick to philosophy and psychology mate if you cant figure this out

Hey man, go suck some dick, alright?

damn did you pick out the one thing in math that is subjective?

jokes on you im sucking one right now. The fact that you resorted to insults show that you're just fucking stupid

/thread

Anything subjective is consistent within itself. Anything consistent can be formulated, objectively.

>jokes on you im sucking one right now.
Okay, just wanted to make sure.

Also. The machinery of the mind is variable. Statements like "my couch is red" are only correct for you, as your experience of red at a given instant likely do not map 1:1 with another machine, human or otherwise.

but the couch absorbs all light except for this dark maroon which is reflected. There is no way around this man how can you not fucking understand that? Its the same people ive met in life who say the same asinine shit and all i do is shake my head and think about how retarded they are when they think their being thoughtful.

Isn't that subjective, though?

classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es2802/es2802page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization

Motion is the universal existential being. From motion we can derive position. Relative to position with respect to time, we can determine energy. Everything is energy. The subjective is epistemologically objectified this way, through observation. The subjective a priori position is determined with probability, such that the quanta of energy is relative to a branching tree diagram; thusly propagating position, which is routed in the energy, and position, such that it produces a seemingly cosmological motion, with a constant to scale the factor of the code of the universe embedded in the meta-universe/pre-universe. Matter is just data. Accessing the data requires an objective to do so. Fulfilling the objective, shows us the matter. Matter is measurable, partitioning the energy into itself. Is matter a noumenon? Well, it's internally consistent, even if the chaotic external reality needs deductions for conceptual inference. Thus reality can be predicted objectively.

You ignored what I said and just looped back to the same thing I already clearly understood. I know there's objective I/O for the couch, I'm saying abstraction experiences like "red" don't necessarily map 1:1. For several reasons. So you shouldn't say your couch is objectively red, you should say it's average outputted wavelength in the typical visible spectrum, is X. Or define it as a range with clusters wherever. Don;t necessarily need to confine it to visible wavelengths either.

Etc.

OK. But the noumenon is consistent with data, giving a common objective understanding. But this is just a theory, if you can prove that something is both blue and red, then we have a paradox. A contradiction. But, still, there are quantum dimensions, measurable or otherwise.

>Statements like "my couch is red" are only correct for you, as your experience of red at a given instant likely do not map 1:1 with another machine, human or otherwise.

That's partially true. You may for example see blue, due to the receptors in your eyes being different, but you've learned to call it red. Though the couch emits a certain frequency, regardless of how your eyes interpret it, and we can use modern instruments to determine the 'color' of said couch.

Have you seen any videos of colourblind people seeing the colours they were missing for the first time, it starts 40 seconds in.

youtube.com/watch?v=vBbCsNS8nco

>How can science dismiss subjectivity when everything we know is subjective?

What?

Let's imagine, for a second, three things:

1. You aren't solipsistic because you feel jealous towards normal people.

2. 'We can't know anything' includes that the statement 'we can't know anything' is false.

3. Science doesn't dismiss subjectivity; it just tries to have the least amount bias while being able to be repeated.

end urself my mane

>Science doesn't dismiss subjectivity
But it also doesn't endorse it.

Don't dichotomize the argument either.

It's true, though. Science just doesn't care about it. Science is single-minded in it's quest, and that's just the way I like it.

I'm not disagreeing; just don't want OP to use shit arguments

>we can't know anything' is false

But doesn't the scientific method accept this, by being skeptical towards your own and other interpretations of data?

This statement is false.

That statement above is nonsensical and violates the law of noncontradiction in logic.

I didn't say it was logic or not, but it is an assumption of the scientific method yes?

Obviously logic itself is a different topic.

Pic related is both blue and red.

Logic is a tool of philosophy.
Science is a method of philosophy.

Striving to be objective is not the same as dismissing subjectivity

>jpg
Come on. It's one solid color. That image would be ~250 BYTES, if you saved it as a png.

BAKA SENPAI TBQH.

Ex. Psychology

I see purple.

I wasn't saying that it dismisses subjectivity, more that I'm skeptical about how closely it can be investigated with the scientific method, and whether it can ever be fully understood.

But it's not solid color. When you open it, pixels on your screen that will represent the picture change their color to red and blue. So, the picture is both red and blue.

That's more of a problem of epistemology (how do we attain knowledge) than metaphysics

You're skepticism is well placed though. Look up Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for an example in math.

I'm not talking about the physical RGB output, I mean how the information is encoded in the file. You've used DCT quantization with a huffman pass over it, which is an extremely inefficient way to represent the information.

What do you think of Wittgenstein's ideas on incompleteness theorem?

Donno, his ideas were incomplete.

Plato fanboy detected.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

A dog and I both have different subjective experiences of the world around us, but this is only due to an objective reality which creates these subjective experiences.

>which creates these subjective experiences.

Creates or permits/facilitates?

yes

So subjectivity is an emergent property of an objective world, and the division between objective and subjective might be arbitrary, only necessitated by our inability to be outside our own consciousness?

Wha- ermm, yes, exactly what I was going for. Quite right.

>muh subjectivity
>muh consciousness

It's just sense data being relayed to your animal brain. Why are brainlets obsessed with this? Is it because it's the only thing they have going for themselves? It's the only "deep" thing they're able to grasp.

It's interesting isn't enough?

Wow, no, you stupid prick. It needs to be unique and elevate your status within the group as the one who's above all that. It needs to exist relative your localized social hierarchy

>Speed of light is = 299 792 458 m / s
>the meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds
>objectively true

ok bud

Yes, it's interesting enough we're able to recognize that we preceive things. But there isn't much more you can say about it, realistically.

It's so funny to me that the abstraction of thinking about your own perception gives people pleasure.

The unexamined life is not worth living m80.

True, it's fun to take the scenic route, but don't dillydally on it for ever. Most scientists have been there in their youth, but they realized that there is no point is asking the unanswerable, for an eternity. Use that analytical engine of yours and commit it to asking and answering the questions that can be answered.

I actually study ecology, not philosophy.

Cool m8. We need more ecologists. I hope you're the good kind.

I'm definitely working towards averting the ecological clusterfuck we're heading towards.

Great. It's always nice to hear someone committed to a worthy cause.

How can science be real if our eyes aren't real?

Do I win?

I think, therefore I am.

Therefore what enables me to think, also is.

Taking Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Wittgenstein's work into account.

Does this mean that we can not be certain of our knowledge of what enables us to be.

Or did I prove nothing?

>damn did you pick out the very foundation of everything?

He did, user. He did.

I know for a fact that you will die if you sink in lava.

Just another dickhead running his mouth without first hand empirical data.

Ignore.

People when over Niagara falls in a barrel?

went*

I am a bot.

Hows it feel to be wrong.

Bots dies in lava as well

The computer I am posting from is a volcano.

Also a bot cannot die. I am not alive.

>statement = objective truth
This sentence is false.
This sentence is false.
This sentence is false.
This sentence is false.
This sentence is false.
This sentence is false.

>what enables you to think
Implying that your consciousness didn't just randomly pop out of nowhere.

Nowhere or nothing?

Nothing.

>Heh, stupid scientists don't even know that they can not know. I am therefor a superior intellect. Thanks for inventing and creating everything I use, but you just aren't enlightened like me.

As if constantly questioning your own believes isn't central to the scientific model.

>muh paradigm

>studying psychology
>every single one of my teachers are subjectivity philosotards
>they justify it with quantum physics

>>they justify it with quantum physics
Oh my.

One problem is that language and sentences are Subjective.

>As if constantly questioning your own believes isn't central to the scientific model.
scientists never question scientific realism and never ever there salary for having faith in scientific realism

What colour is your couch if you irradiate it only with UV light? Is it still red?

>the couch absorbs all light except for this dark maroon which is reflected
>except for this dark maroon
>dark maroon light
>how can you not fucking understand that?

Learn what the word means before making a retard out of yourself on a chuvash yogurt cultivating website

If all statements are either true or false, a statement is either true or false.
If all statements are either true or false, a statement is either true or false.
If all statements are either true or false, a statement is either true or false.
If all statements are either true or false, a statement is either true or false.
If all statements are either true or false, a statement is either true or false.
If all statements are either true or false, a statement is either true or false.