| I agree with your co-commentator, everything is subjective and we just take some things for granted so much that we take them as truth. Seems i was wrong calling it inarguable, in fact i like to argue back and forth a lot. > observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective"). no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal post. That kind of subjectivity might be your threshold for accepting some cognition as close enough to your supposition of objectivity, but it still requires trust on an individual level. > an interesting question, but not really about science. Science concerns itself only with things that can be reduced to empirical observation, not belief. Specifically by including subjectivity through empiricism, you in fact beget belief. I.e. measurements have an inherit uncertainty and you do what you can to reduce it. > but the basic scientific precept is the null hypothesis, the idea that things without evidence are assumed to be false You seem to fall for the fallacy of negated implication. My best guess is, the Null Hypothesis really states that evidence implies reality. Or as my teacher put it, just because it didn't rain, the street doesn't have to be dry.
It's hard to explain and I'm tired, sorry. I often fall for it, too. |
You're making the post-modern argument. Are you aware of this? Everything is subjective, there are no objective shared truths, it's all a matter of opinion. But you haven't thought this viewpoint through to its logical conclusion, which is that, if it's true, then it applies first to the argument itself, fatally undermining it.