"Legislation should be based on...."

[Kulindahr]

"... objective truth."

-- Neil DeGrasse Tyson, on the Anthony Cumia show



I was doing my occasional marathon viewing of various science speakers on YouTube and came across this interview and the above statement. I can see both good and bad about it.

Would this be a good idea to impose on Congress?

 

[opinterph]

I found a YouTube video titled, “Full Interview: Neil deGrasse Tyson on The Anthony Cumia Show,” but it’s almost an hour long and the brief description does not mention “objective truth” or “legislation.”

Maybe provide a link or better yet – give us a synopsis of the interview so we can better understand the proposed topic of discussion.

 

[Stardreamer]

The problem is of course how do you determine what is 'objective truth'. It sort of like the idea I like of limiting riders on bills to just things that directly relate to the subject of the main bill (no sticking an abortion rider on a must pass military funding bill). It's a great idea but you know great amounts of pretzel logic will evolve to get around it.

 

[Vitamin]

I don't think the most serious problem with the idea is really how you determine what is objective truth, but more that some things that need to be decided by nations simply can't be determined using that. Take taxes for example. As much as everyone has deeply held opinions on them and their effects on the economy, there simply isn't enough data supporting either the right or left positions to arrive at a completely unbiased conclusion. Laws and politicans will be filled with bias and opinions no matter who writes the laws, or who puts the politicans in office.

 

[Vitamin]

Oh and then there's the whole question of when a society should believe a human life begins. No way the scientific method is ever answering that question.

 

[kallipolis]

The determination of truth is a matter that each of us determines...our way.

Placing objective in front of truth merely provides a little flavouring to the mix.

The subjective is its own reward when ones personal experiences become ones truth.

 

[ElmosToe]

^you gonna pass it to the left at some point or what?


Perhaps objective facts would be a more accurate term, since apparently truth is subjective.

 

[kallipolis]

^you gonna pass it to the left at some point or what?


Perhaps objective facts would be a more accurate term, since apparently truth is subjective.

Fact should not need qualifying...objectively.

 

[Telstra]

What is "objective truth"?
Truth should be truth and false should be false.

 

[kallipolis]

What is "objective truth"?
Truth should be truth and false should be false.

We might well treasure the thought that truth is what we believe it to be, the result of our experiences informing us that our truth is...truthful.

The point being made here by me is that ones truth more often, or not is drawn from ones life's experiences...therefore dependent upon ones experiences, and interpretation of those experiences.

The control freak might well argue until their death day that objective truth is superior, to subjective truth. That objective truth being their interpretation of reality...also known as a subjective view of life.

Each of us here brings our own experiences to this forum, enabling us to learn from one another's life experiences.

 

[Kabluey]

Objective truth sounds great to scientific minds. In reality a more nuanced view of the world is required.

 

[Kulindahr]

I found a YouTube video titled, “Full Interview: Neil deGrasse Tyson on The Anthony Cumia Show,” but it’s almost an hour long and the brief description does not mention “objective truth” or “legislation.”

Maybe provide a link or better yet – give us a synopsis of the interview so we can better understand the proposed topic of discussion.

It's in this item:

There are gems all through it. The pertinent discussion runs through 5:53.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh and then there's the whole question of when a society should believe a human life begins. No way the scientific method is ever answering that question.

Actually science can give an answer to that, in scientific terms. The problem there is that science can't tell us everything; it can give us a "definitely human after this point", but can't answer whether that's the actual point, because it can't probe before that.

But for passing a law that should be sufficient; saying "At this point we know the entity is a human life, so after that point it has to be treated as a human person".

 

[Kulindahr]

The determination of truth is a matter that each of us determines...our way.

Placing objective in front of truth merely provides a little flavouring to the mix.

The subjective is its own reward when ones personal experiences become ones truth.

No. Watch the section I indicated in the video I've now linked: objective truth isn't just a favor of truth; saying that results in the position that there is no truth. The term "truth for me" is the biggest lie of the last century, because it eliminates truth and replaces it with brain farts.

 

[TX-Beau]

No. Watch the section I indicated in the video I've now linked: objective truth isn't just a favor of truth; saying that results in the position that there is no truth. The term "truth for me" is the biggest lie of the last century, because it eliminates truth and replaces it with brain farts.

Second, the word "Truth" has been hijacked and now means assertion. "My Truth is my experience..." A statement that contradicts itself, because if Truth can be everything, it ceases to be anything at all.

I stopped using it and now use "fact."

Legislation is usually based in some kind of Human need. Things that can be objective facts (poisoned water) or subjective goals (better education) - but I do think that once we begin writing legislation, that should be based on objective fact (will this kind of pipe stay uncontaminated, do educational theories promoted actually provide improvements?)

 

[Kulindahr]

Second, the word "Truth" has been hijacked and now means assertion. "My Truth is my experience..." A statement that contradicts itself, because if Truth can be everything, it ceases to be anything at all.

I stopped using it and now use "fact."

Legislation is usually based in some kind of Human need. Things that can be objective facts (poisoned water) or subjective goals (better education) - but I do think that once we begin writing legislation, that should be based on objective fact (will this kind of pipe stay uncontaminated, do educational theories promoted actually provide improvements?)

One of my favorites is the idiot decision by the federal government to end packaging cheese in cheesecloth and wax and require vacuum-sealing. The result is more wasted cheese due to mold than anyone could have imagined: vacuum-packing doesn't kill surface mold, but sealing the cheese by dropping it in hot wax did.

 

[opinterph]

One of my favorites is the idiot decision by the federal government to end packaging cheese in cheesecloth and wax and require vacuum-sealing.

Is that a recent change? We buy commercially produced wax-coated cheese fairly frequently.

I’ve looked at the Code of Federal Regulations and it currently states that wax “is used as a packaging material or component of packaging materials for cheese and cheese products.”

 

[Kulindahr]

Is that a recent change? We buy commercially produced wax-coated cheese fairly frequently.

I’ve looked at the Code of Federal Regulations and it currently states that wax “is used as a packaging material or component of packaging materials for cheese and cheese products.”

The cheese factory here went to vacuum-packing over two decades ago, and they said it was forced by regulation. But it's well-established that cheesecloth and wax is a better preservative/packaging.

Maybe I should write them..... OTOH, all the cheese in the dairy section is vacuum-packed; the only wax-packed is small packages in the deli section.

 

[kallipolis]

No. Watch the section I indicated in the video I've now linked: objective truth isn't just a favor of truth; saying that results in the position that there is no truth. The term "truth for me" is the biggest lie of the last century, because it eliminates truth and replaces it with brain farts.

That's the point that I am making. Truth is how we perceive it, based upon our experiences.

It can be argued that truth...whether qualified by... objective.. or not, remains the position of each of us based upon our life's experiences. On this forum we daily experience the effortless attempts of many posters to remind us that their truth, is the only truth...whereas, others with opposing opinions, remain unmoved by those "truths." Were we to re-run the gun debate we would discover that your truths are not welcomed here, by those whose truths are not yours.

Others here have correctly referenced...fact....that presumes to be an unassailable, immovable "truth" based upon empirical research. We also know that yesterday's facts, some times become today's misinterpretations.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the point that I am making. Truth is how we perceive it, based upon our experiences.

It can be argued that truth...whether qualified by... objective.. or not, remains the position of each of us based upon our life's experiences. On this forum we daily experience the effortless attempts of many posters to remind us that their truth, is the only truth...whereas, others with opposing opinions, remain unmoved by those "truths." Were we to re-run the gun debate we would discover that your truths are not welcomed here, by those whose truths are not yours.

Others here have correctly referenced...fact....that presumes to be an unassailable, immovable "truth" based upon empirical research. We also know that yesterday's facts, some times become today's misinterpretations.

You're just encouraging the lie. When you say "their truth", you make the term meaningless.

If it isn't the same for all (local) observers, it isn't truth.