Imagine that, with regards to a given question / problem, two kinds of reality are on a collision course:
objective reality "out there" on the one hand (as studied by science),
versus subjective reality (personal convictions, beliefs, feelings,...) on the other.
Only one side can be right; no compromise.
Which side should have right of way, so to speak? Which side has priority?
Always objective reality? Or are there cases (which? ) where subjective, personal certainty has priority, no matter what science has to say about it ?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.'I simply know that X is true, and whatever science tells me about X, I don't care.'
I think this statement stands if science is not about confirming a fact as truth with absolute certainty, i.e., everything in science comes with a degree of uncertainty, so nothing is ever scientifically absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Ryo1
Level 8
Mar 22, 2023
0
You are saying some would say preception is reality. While preception can be reality, the mere fact that one thinks something is true does not make it true.
Alienbeing
Level 8
Mar 22, 2023
0
There are not two kinds of reality, objective and subjective, there is only one reality, objective and subjective are not realities, merely methods used to try to reach that reality. And reaching that, is very hard by both methods, so that it is not only a case of, is objective or subjective correct, but also a case of, is either of them correct ? Since there is also the highly likely possible, that both could be wrong. ( Or both correct and the apparent difference is the mistake. )
Indeed to a degree, both are almost certainly wrong all of the time, since perfect modeling of reality by the human brain, like everything else in the human sphere, is not, possible. Especially as we do not have much chance of perfection with only our limited senses and cognitive powers. ( Perhaps arguably the basics of mathematics, only.)
That however, is not an argument for relativism, since while perfect modeling of reality may not be possible, that does not mean that some models are not more truthful than others. Indeed it would be a form of perfection if all models were exactly equally in error. And in any case, relativism is only the frauds escape route, when they wish to avoid challenges, or not put in the work, it is by nature anti-progress and anti-learning and therefore leads nowhere.
Therefore if you find that your subjective view and your objective view are in conflict, you can not say that one should by nature trump the other. Rather you should say that you need to put a lot more work and effort in, (Objective is often better, only because people sometimes put more work and self sacrifice into it. ) and if that gets you nowhere, then you have to learn to accept the third way, not subjective, or objective, but. "I don't know."
Fernapple
Level 9
Mar 22, 2023
1
From a strictly metaphysical point of view (which would be a 'view from nowhere" ) it would be correct to say that there is only one Ultimate Reality. But very few people are metaphysicists (metaphysicians?).
For all practical, real-life purposes, there are at least two realities: what people believe (and this belief can be very strong, especially if everybody else holds the same belief!) versus What is the case; Or what science tells us to be the case). To say that this (subjective) belief is not a kind of reality, that it is not real, is somewhat strange, because beliefs, be they true or false, have real consequences.
How could something that is not real have real consequences? Wouldn't that be a creatio ex nihilo?
Therefore it is obvious that for practical purposes these two realities exist, and not only we experience them every day, but also that they can be at odds: I can be absolutely sure that X, only to find out that X is not the case.
The question of my OP is: Are there cases where "I'm absolutely sure that X" is more important than, or trumps "X is not the case".
Or: "I simply know that X is true, and Whatever science tells me about X, I don't care...".
Are there cases where such a statement is legitimate?
@Thibaud70 Belief is a thing we have in both our subjective and our objective models of reality, and both are unreal in the sense that they are models, and that therefore, like all models which exist in our brains, they are only at best, only reflections of an outer reality. Although they may have a material reality of their own, like all models. A model train is made of plastic, and would therefore melt if you put combustibles inside it, and tried to run its engine. So it is not a train, in one sense. Yet it may still be a model of a train and true in part, to the thing that it models, so that in another way it is not wrong to call it a train. And it still has a material "real" existence. Just as the models in our brains are both models, and are real electrical and chemical actions within our brain cells.
We then act on the basis of those models, (We have nothing else to go by.) and then they affect outer reality, ( Unless you are a solipisist. ) and it is not that subjective models are less real than objective ones, more that objective models are no more real than subjective ones. And I did not say that they could not be at odds, only that it is most likely, most of the time, that both are to some degree wrong.
That is the practical real world reality. Personally I find that my subjective wants are hardly ever at odds with my objective observations and models of reality, but then I am on the autistic spectrum, so that is perhaps one problem that I am lucky not to have.
Subjectively, you may feel that pains are bad things to be avoided completely if possible, and you could wish there were no such things, and to live a life without them. Yet objectively science tells me that I have a nervous system, which grew by natural evolution, to protect me from harm. So that if I accidentally put my hand in the fire, the pain makes me pull it away, before I burn my fingers off. And I know from medical evidence that people who can not feel pain, due to faulty genetics, are truly unfortunate in many ways.
That seems like a conflict. But that is where putting in the work comes in. Because when I think deeper, then I will realize that, if I were not hard wired with a wish to avoid all pain, except when great rewards are on offer. Then the pain system would not work. Therefore even my most subjective wishes, like everlasting happiness, are created by a process, which can be explained perfectly within an objective frame. And that applies equally to all subjective wishes, desires and pains, even very complex ones like love, fear, and solitude, not just simple physical pain
My subjective opinion is that this is a brilliant question but from an objective perspective it could be considered too imprecise.
Subjective opinion may inspire investigation that reveals objective truth in science.
If the truths are diametrically opposed then there is no 'right of way' there should only dialectic discovery.
In matters of personal preference subjective opinion holds sway.
waitingforgodo
Level 8
Mar 22, 2023
1
Objective reality should take precedence, except where personal conviction (if it diverges from objective reality) gives comfort and cannot possibly do any harm [as in a person with no influence lying on their death bed].
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Mar 21, 2023
3
Your premise is flawed. The questions you pose are meaningless thereby.
anglophone
Level 9
Mar 21, 2023
3
How about Alternative Facts as put forth by trumpsters? More confusion!
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Mar 21, 2023
4
Confusing or humorous?
@Alienbeing well, it would be humorous if so many idiots didn't believe it.
@AnneWimsey True.
Objective reality relates to that which is true regardless of how we feel about it like the boiling temperature of water or the temperature at which water turns to ice. All experience is subjective and the subject/observer is part of the field. I think if you were to give an example as suggested by Racocn8 then we would have something to think about otherwise it is too vague.
ASTRALMAX
Level 8
Mar 21, 2023
2
No, if I mentioned a specific issue or problem, you'd deal just with this issue, not with the basic idea. You can come up with your own example for priority of the subjective over the objective.
If you don't want to get stuck on one issue, mention several examples to generalize your concerns...
The reality is that 'science' is rarely ever completely objective.
There are often dogmas adhered to and biases that creep in.
BDair
Level 8
Mar 21, 2023
0
That's what science is about: to keep the biases and personal preferences / perspectives at bay. A 'view from nowhere' is not possible, but one can try to come as close as possible
I would not pick one side for onesidedness factor. Because often the better anwser is somewhere in the middle of even two opposing sides of science. As far as subjective reality, personal convictions, beliefs, feelings, and on. That's my individualism priority objective is to be well being. It takes a combined both objective and subjective. Like the difference between consciousness mind or the more powerful subconsciousness mind, don't leave home without it. . Who is science?...Dr. Fauci
Castlepaloma
Level 8
Mar 21, 2023
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.