Objectivity, Truth, Facts, Opinions, Beliefs, Knowledge, Rationality, Etc

Dear Students,

A friend and I are at the beginning stages of a book that attempts to explain the differences between truth, facts, opinions, beliefs, knowledge, rationality, etc. Our plan is for the book to be pretty short and accessible to non-philosophers. Our reason for writing it has to do with our experiences with students, friends, fellow church members, family members, etc who seem to have no problem granting that there are truths and facts about some things but then seem reluctant or unwilling or awkward when it comes to truths and facts about other things.

One issue that seems to me to be worth exploring is disagreement. I think that a lot of people have the intuition that persistent disagreement over a topic is good evidence that there is no truth and are no facts about that topic (i.e. that the topic is not really about something objective).

Another issue worth exploring is the relation between sensory based beliefs/knowledge and beliefs/knowledge that is not sensory based.

Lots of issues worth exploring, but we would love to hear from you. What are some things that you would like to read about regarding these issues? What are questions you have? What topics should short and accessible book on this stuff cover?

All throughtful replies will either receive one Focus Paper credit or the equivalent in extra credit points (i.e. 10 pts). You can respond here or email me with a response. You have one week to do so.

Also, we will include your name in the acknowledgment section of the book!

Comments

  1. Colton SprungerMay 1, 2020 at 2:16 PM

    So as a filmmaker, I have been listening to a podcast that discusses this in the realm of film criticism. It's a bunch of Youtubers who talk about how to judge a film on what is objectively good writing rather than only viewing it subjectively. This train of thought is obviously not only applicable to films, but to things in the real world as well.
    Anyway, I am really interested in the topic of objectivity versus subjectivity. If I say that I like the taste of bananas, that is my opinion. But if I say that bananas are a good source of potassium, there are arguments to back that claim up with scientific facts that are true. With the bananas are good statement, one could argue for why they taste good with facts describing the texture and other factors of a banana, but the other person who does not like the banana could do the same thing back.
    All of this being said, I think it comes down to if anything is innately, universally factual. I think there are, it's just tricky on how to argue them. Is a fact defined as one thing everyone agrees on, or just something that can be proven by observation?
    I think the topic of this sounds awesome and definitely something I would at least consider picking up if I saw one randomly on a shelf at a bookstore. So I am glad you are writing this book and I hope it goes well for you and your friend. Have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  2. michael bethelMay 2, 2020 at 9:17 AM

    Whenever someone brings up that, since there is so much moral disagreement, like abortion and euthanasia, and uses that as evidence that there must not be any objective morals, I can't help but think of the flat earth example. Or we could use the example of the belief that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the earth, either example works my point. Anyway, back then, cultures used to be so certain that they were right, that the earth is flat. And anyone who disagrees with that must be crazy. But then along came some evidence that suggested the earth probably wasn't flat, and so the culture was split. There was some evidence that suggested both sides of the argument could be true, but not enough evidence that suggested only one side could be true. That side being that the earth is indeed round, shown by mathematics calculations and modern day telescopes and aircraft.
    Anyway, my main point is, that since there so much disagreement on some big moral issues, this could simply mean that we don't have the right kind of evidence yet. Maybe in the future we will find better evidence to support the claim one way or another. Maybe we just need a philosophical telescope that shows us that the earth actually revolves around sun and not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arguing For God's Existence

Proving God’s Existence Throughout the modern period of philosophy and theology (beginning around the 18 th century until now) various thinkers have suggested that there is something problematic about giving arguments for God’s existence. They have given a variety of different reasons: faith requires the absence of proof, faith requires not relying on a proof, even if there are some, no argument for God’s existence is a good one, no argument gets us to God, no argument gets us to the God of the Bible (this is the worry that the God of the philosophers is different from the God of the Bible), arguments for God’s existence assume that our intellects have not been affected by the fall, God’s existence is obvious and a proof assumes that it is not, God’s existence is known by all because it is implanted in us so proofs are superfluous at best, denials of God’s existence are a sin problem, not a philosophy problem, etc. Rather than focus on the above reasons for not giving arguments f...
Read more

Possible Worlds and Covid-19

We are in the midst of a pandemic. As nations around the world respond to it, models of varying kinds are being generated to give policy-makers, practitioners, and others some kind of insight into the implications of all sorts of responses to the pandemic. Each model involves a bunch of assumptions—many of which are hidden in the mathematics—ranging from estimates about the number of actual infections, rate of infection, prevalence of co-morbidities, demographics of regions, infection death-rates, confirmed infection death-rates, duration of virus, etc. etc. etc.  Each model is representing a possible world! Did you notice that? Every model—and these are being relied upon by each and every country’s leaders in the world right now—is a prediction of what the world will look if x is true and we do y (to simplify quite a bit). Change x a bit and leave y alone and we get a new future; leave x alone and change y a bit and we get a new future; change both x and y a bit and we get ...
Read more

Concepts of Existence: An Intuitive Introduction

Concepts of Existence Consider the following: some dogs are brown. (In what follows, I use the phrases, property, first-order property, predicate, first-order predicate, as synonyms. They each mean roughly: a feature of some individual object. So a second-order property or second-order predicate is a property or predicate of an individual's first-order property. The considerations below suggest that 'existence' is best understood as a second-order property and not a first-order one. This will all be more understandable after you read below!) Given the truth of the above it seems to follow that some dogs exist. We do not need to add to the above claim: Some dogs are brown and they exist. Once we know that some dogs are brown, we already know that they exist. So, existence is not really a property of anything in the way that, say, being brown is a property of some dogs. So, it looks like thinking existence is a property is either unnecessary or incoherent. If x...
Read more