Determining Truths

Have you ever determined an objective statement that you've heard or read through a news outlet to be true and how so? i.e. what criteria would have to be met for you to accept a piece of information?

 

That's a really good question. Normally I'll look for consensus among multiple news outlets, but since the mainstream media has the potential to be biased (they're run by massive corporations after all), I try to check other sources, whether it's foreign media, witnesses to an event, insider leaks, etc. It can still be hard to be 100% sure, though.

 

Can there be objective statements?
Doesn't a statement necessarily involve a subject, and therefore subjectivity?

 

For it to be objective its essentially fact or situation not based upon personal emotion or view.. So inherently objectivity is true in itself isn't it? Although i look for consensus of objectivity through multiple and CREDIBLE reports. Ive seen too many ridiculous things on Facebook that are so farfetched i don't know how people believe them in the first place.

 

I like to listen to the press releases so I don't need to read it second hand from the media.

 

I claim it is fairly easy to determine truths from objective statements. What I do is familiarize myself with possible biases on the subject and I read the article/view the medium accordingly. I do this so I can filter out words and phrases that would cloud me from seeing what is going on, instead of opinions of what the news outlet thinks should or should not happen. I also look out for adjectives as well describing either praise or condemnation/passive aggression.

 

I do try to find the source my self on a topic that catches my attention.
Or else I tend to turn to google and do some research.

 

Are you implying statements which are fact based are not objective?

 

It can be backed up with proof ? Documentation ? Not a long of sheeple left that can tell the difference between fact & fiction anymore

 

I am inclined to think so.

We may say, "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America," but if that is a fact, it is only so after (not before) verification by subjects.

We may say, "Mercury boils at 674.1°F," but for such a statement to be made it is first necessary for its contents to be known; i.e. a subject must first know what is mercury, and then the temperature at which it boils.

It's the statement which by definition is a subjective action; its content (or argument) can be true (or false) either subjectively or objectively.

Moreover, the examples of Trump and mercury you might agree are not biased statements, and it seems to me a statement can be subjective and then either biased or unbiased. I don't think they can be objective though, unless there are non-subjects capable of stating. I mean, could you consider to be an objective statement, say, a volcanic eruption, or wind howling?

A truly objective statement I think would have to be extremely specific, as well as self-referential in order to account for its own existence as a statement made by a stating subject.

 

I still don't understand what you're trying to say or suggest. A statement is a clear expression of something in speech or writing. Determining whether the statement itself is subjective or objective comes after by verifying the contents of the statement. "Donald Trump is the President of the United States." is an objective statement, and is not subjective before or after.

 

I'm distinguishing between statement and argument.

Imagine two circles, one within the other. The outer circle is the statement, always (practically speaking) subjective. The inner circle is the argument (content, code, meaning, signification, etc), which may be true/false objectively or subjectively. So, "Donald Trump is President" is an objectively true statement, granting that a statement is, being an act of signification by or between subjects, always subjective prior to any determination of its truth.

 

Now you're not making any sense. Using your logic, true or false questions are always false before verifying the truth. It should be seen as a blank canvas without any attributes until assessed.

 

Could you elaborate?

 

You're essentially saying statements are subjective until proven objective.

 

Ok, but it sounded like you interpreted what I said to mean that in true-false statements falsehood corresponds to subjectivity, is that right?

 

Same feel like there's another level of verification when you put a face to the source

 

No, it was an illustration of how your logic is being applied. Swap out true and false for objective and subjective and that's how you're essentially explaining it to me.

 

No not all!

If you could point to me where you see that implication that would help me better respond to your point.

I can reiterate this in the meantime: My premise is that statements are by definition subjective; that is, they are formed by subjects. In addition, however, a statement's content may be objectively (or subjectively) true or false.

Again, I am distinguishing between statements and content.

----------------

The statement, "Donald Trump is a president" is objectively true (in spite of whatever else he might be).

The statement, "Donald Trump is a great president," may be either true or false subjectively, depending of course on who interprets it.

The statement, "I think this thread is pointless," is subjectively false, and it is so because I think it is not pointless. For someone who agrees with it, however, it would be subjectively true for them.

The statement, "This is an interesting topic," is subjectively true, again, because I think it is interesting, but if someone were to think it is uninteresting, then for them it would be subjectively false.

The statement, "This response was not posted on Sythe.org," is objectively false.

-----------------

I gather from the OP, as well as from the majority of responses to it, that objectivity is generally thought to necessarily imply truth. But that, however, I contend is not the case.

The TRUTH of a statement is what I consider to be subjective or objective - not the statement itself. That, again, I consider to be always subjective: the statement; not necessarily its content, which may be objectively or subjectively true or false.

A statement must be subjective, if it is relayed between subjects. As far as I know there are no statements which can be, without any aid from subjects, relayed between objects, unless you count computers (although these, to my knowledge, so far have all been built by engineers; i.e. subjects).

At that point you'd be entering AI territory, but then I think you'd have to ask: What is a subject, or an object for that matter? Where does one end and the other begin?

-------------------

I think it's difficult to define objectivity. "The absence of a need for a subject," might be too reductionist, especially if we begin considering epistemological anthropocentrism, which posits (I guess in its most extreme form) that all that exists exists only because there are humans to perceive it.

Without our eyes or bodies, would what we know as light or motion be identical to the way they are as they are known by us?

Probably not, but that doesn't necessarily mean light or motion would not exist (still, there are interesting arguments to the contrary).

In any case, that question doesn't really seem possible to answer with certainty, does it?

 

You're flip flopping between two definitions of subjective and objective whilst trying to tie both together in an attempt to make sense of what you're saying.

These are the definitions that are relevant to this discussion:

Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.