detabbing again

[Tim Rentsch]

There is no objective truth about what the Standard means
because we don't have any way of measuring "meaning". We
can measure what people say it means, but that provides
objective truth only about what people are saying, not
about what the actual meaning (or "meaning") is.

Does that explain what I was trying to say any better?
Yeah. I disagree.

I think there is an objective truth, and I suspect we even know what it
is.

Language isn't ALWAYS precise enough for us to claim objective truth about
it, but sometimes it really is precise enough that we can say with
real confidence that something is true or false.
I guess we mean different things by the word "objective".
If you reduce the meaning of the word "objective" to the point
that *nothing* can ever be objective, [snip consequent].

I haven't done that.

You have, because to evaluate any statement, including in science, you
have to know what it means, and you are saying that if you need to
know what it means you cannot test it objectively.

It isn't necessary to know what something means in order
to measure it; it's necessary only to have an instrument
available that will perform the measurement. If the
speedometer on my car says the car is going 60 mph,
it isn't necessary to know what that means to verify that
the speedometer does in fact say 60 mph. If I say, "the
mass of the Higgs boson is X," that's just a shorthand
for (among other statements) "if thus-and-such experiment
is run on the Large Hadron Collider, the number that
will appear on such-and-such readout is X." It isn't
necessary to know what mass is, or what a Higgs boson
is, or what it means for a Higgs boson to have mass,
to see that the readout does indeed display X.

Well, you seem to be in a minority on this point. I would say that it
can be determined objectively tht such an implementation does not
conform to the C standard.

I don't have any real problem understanding that usage of
"objectively", and I don't disagree with the statement
under that usage. It's just a different way of using the
word than how I was using it.

 

[Seebs]

I guess we mean different things by the word "objective".

It'd be extremely hard to tell.

I think that there is a truth as to what the standard means which is not
dependent on the beliefs or opinions of the observer. There are cases in
which it is probably not possible for anyone to tell what that truth is.
There are some cases in which the standard does not express a position on
a particular issue. There are some observers who can't understand any of
it (say, they don't read, and they don't know any English). But, in general,
I think we can have comparable certainty as to what the standard means on many
questions to the certainty we have about questions like "is that person dead?"
or "is that a dog or a cat".

It's certainly possible for there to be people who have the words "dog" and
"cat" wrong, but there's enough agreement on them that we can reasonably talk
about "what the word cat means in English", if not with enough precision to
handle every boundary case (is Black Pete in the old Mickey Mouse comics a
cat, or just a large animal with triangular ears and whiskers?), then
certainly enough to determine, given a reasonably typical house pet, whether
its recent consumption of garlic justifies a trip to the vet.

Note that "objective" does not necessarily imply "knowable". However, in the
fairly straightforward cases, we rapidly reach the point where something is
about as well knowable as, say, the existence of any objects external to a
given observer.

-s

 

[Seebs]

This sense of 'objective' is more like "indisputable". I think
almost all people would agree with that conclusion. But it's
still just opinion on what the meaning is, even if it happens
that all the opinions agree.

Could you give an example of something you *do* consider a matter of
objective truth?

-s

 

[Eric Sosman]

Could you give an example of something you *do* consider a matter of
objective truth?

Cogito, ergo add.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Could you give an example of something you *do* consider a matter of
objective truth?

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

 

[Nick Keighley]

let's throw away the whole of logic and mathematics...


And something like the C standard is nearer to (and hence more precise
than)
a mathematical or logical construction than, say, this morning's
newspaper.

I guess we mean different things by the word "objective".
If you reduce the meaning of the word "objective" to the point
that *nothing* can ever be objective, [snip consequent].

I haven't done that.

You have, because to evaluate any statement, including in science,

I think we are in realm where objectivity is even more atainable
than physical science. Physical science requires measurement and
hence statistics. Logic can be more certain than that.

you
have to know what it means, and you are saying that if you need to know
what it means you cannot test it objectively.



Well, you seem to be in a minority on this point. I would say that it
can be determined objectively tht such an implementation does not
conform to the C standard.

yes. And there are language standards that are more formal than C

 

[Nick Keighley]

Could you give an example of something you *do* consider a matter of
objective truth?

Sure.  It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

air resistance, non-spherical earth, centripetal force, mascons,
General Relativity, errors in our theories about space-time.

Do you really think this is "more objective" than 366 < 32767?

 

[Tim Rentsch]

It'd be extremely hard to tell.

I think that there is a truth as to what the standard means which is not
dependent on the beliefs or opinions of the observer. There are cases in
which it is probably not possible for anyone to tell what that truth is.
There are some cases in which the standard does not express a position on
a particular issue. There are some observers who can't understand any of
it (say, they don't read, and they don't know any English). But, in general,
I think we can have comparable certainty as to what the standard means on many
questions to the certainty we have about questions like "is that person dead?"
or "is that a dog or a cat".

It's certainly possible for there to be people who have the words "dog" and
"cat" wrong, but there's enough agreement on them that we can reasonably talk
about "what the word cat means in English", if not with enough precision to
handle every boundary case (is Black Pete in the old Mickey Mouse comics a
cat, or just a large animal with triangular ears and whiskers?), then
certainly enough to determine, given a reasonably typical house pet, whether
its recent consumption of garlic justifies a trip to the vet.

Note that "objective" does not necessarily imply "knowable". However, in the
fairly straightforward cases, we rapidly reach the point where something is
about as well knowable as, say, the existence of any objects external to a
given observer.

Maybe this will help.

Looking up "objective" in various online dictionaries, all the
ones I looked at give some variation on the following
alternatives (the ones here are from Merriam-Webster's):

a. of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition
in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual
thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality
independent of the mind

b. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
interpretations

I believe there are statements about what the Standard means that
satisfy (b), but not any that satisfy (a). What the Standard
"means" does not have a reality independent of the mind. What
the Standards /says/ (ie, what its text is) has a reality
independent of the mind, but what it /means/ does not. Meaning
does not have independent physical existence -- it exists only
in the mind.

Does that make more sense now?

 

[Tim Rentsch]

I can give you two: death and taxes.

And government, in its near-infinite wisdom, has decided to
work first on the problem of death.

 

[Seebs]

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

Okay. How about the following claim:

The claim that a 10 pound iron ball and a 20 pound iron ball
fall at the same speed in earth's gravity is true.

Is that one objectively true, or does it run into the language problem
you're pointing to about the Standard's meaning?

-s

 

[Seebs]

Looking up "objective" in various online dictionaries, all the
ones I looked at give some variation on the following
alternatives (the ones here are from Merriam-Webster's):

a. of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition
in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual
thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality
independent of the mind

b. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
interpretations
Okay.

I believe there are statements about what the Standard means that
satisfy (b), but not any that satisfy (a).

I disagree. Consider the claim:

Section 5.2.4.2.1 of the TC3 version of the C99 standard specifies
that the implementation-defined value of INT_MAX must be no less
than 32,767.

The standard exists independent of any observer, and has existence independent
of individual thought. While it's true that we can't observe it without some
kind of observer or thought, so what? Compare it with the claim:

The gravitational effects of an object massing 20 kilograms are
twice the gravitational effects of an object massing 10 kilograms.

This is subject to the same problem -- you can't make sense of this claim
without knowing the words. But it's *true* even if you don't know the
words.

What the Standard
"means" does not have a reality independent of the mind. What
the Standards /says/ (ie, what its text is) has a reality
independent of the mind, but what it /means/ does not. Meaning
does not have independent physical existence -- it exists only
in the mind.

The same could be said of the *meaning* of your example with the two
iron balls, and I think it would be wrong in both cases; while it's true
that a mind probably has to exist to apprehend meaning, it doesn't
necessarily follow that the thing meant can't have independent and objective
truth.

Since the text of the standard really does exist, and the terminology is
defined, I don't think it's really outside the realm of objective reality,
even though all the claims you can make about it are going to be necessarily
fairly elaborately constructed if you want to make sure they're true.

-s

 

[Seebs]

The same could be said of the *meaning* of your example with the two
iron balls, and I think it would be wrong in both cases; while it's true
that a mind probably has to exist to apprehend meaning, it doesn't
necessarily follow that the thing meant can't have independent and objective
truth.

Following up to my own post:

I would like to offer a more interesting example.

1. Grilled cheese sandwiches are delicious.
2. As of this writing, Seebs thinks that grilled cheese sandwiches are
delicious.

The former is subjective; the latter is objective. It is true regardless
of anyone's opinions, or the observer, even though some observers might
not be able to know it to be true...

-s

 

[Ike Naar]

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

You forgot one important disclaimer, which I think is sufficiently
different not to be covered by "etc": the 20 pound ball will suffer
significantly greater air resistance than the 10 pound ball (because
they are made of the same substance, so the heavier ball is perforce
bigger), and will thus fall at a slightly lower speed. We can get rid
of this irritant by specifying that the falls take place in an
evacuated pipe.

The balls could be the same size (think of hollow balls).

 

[Tim Rentsch]

This sense of 'objective' is more like "indisputable". I think
almost all people would agree with that conclusion. But it's
still just opinion on what the meaning is, even if it happens
that all the opinions agree.

Could you give an example of something you *do* consider a matter
of objective truth?

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

You forgot one important disclaimer, which I think is sufficiently
different not to be covered by "etc": the 20 pound ball will suffer
significantly greater air resistance than the 10 pound ball (because
they are made of the same substance, so the heavier ball is perforce
bigger), and will thus fall at a slightly lower speed. We can get rid
of this irritant by specifying that the falls take place in an
evacuated pipe.

I didn't forget, I meant for that to be included under "etc".
Actually I think the effect goes the other way, the heavier
object will be affected by air resistance less, although to
a first approximation it won't matter since they both have
the same density (and it's significantly greater than the
density of air). In any case you're right that air resistance
can have an effect on the measurement, which can be accounted
for either by spelling out the conditions and tolerances
more specifically, or as you say by refining the experiment.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

This sense of 'objective' is more like "indisputable". I think
almost all people would agree with that conclusion. But it's
still just opinion on what the meaning is, even if it happens
that all the opinions agree.

Could you give an example of something you *do* consider a matter of
objective truth?

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

air resistance, non-spherical earth, centripetal force, mascons,
General Relativity, errors in our theories about space-time.

All these fall under the disclaimers. In particular, the question
of how accurate the proposed approximation is meant to be is
included here. "They will fall at the same speed over a distance
of 5 meters, plus or minus one percent" should cover all the
factors you mention. I was hoping these sorts of things would
be apparent from how I phrase the statement of disclaimers.

More importantly, I think the point of my comment may have been
missed. It isn't how true the statement is, it's how objective
it is. The statement "a 20 pound ball falls twice as fast as
a 10 pound ball" is just as objective as the statement that
they fall at the same speed

Do you really think this is "more objective" than 366 < 32767?

I agree that the assertion '366 < 32767' is objectively testable.

However, the assertion "Text in the standard means that an
implementation defining INT_MAX as 366 is not conforming" is not
objectively testable, any more than the assertion "'Ugga wugga
bugga gugga' means that an implementation defining INT_MAX as 366
is not conforming' is objectively testable. What something means
exists only in the minds of people who think it means something;
it doesn't have independent physical existence, and so can't be
verified (or disproved) objectively (under the sense of "objective"
as I am using it).

 

[Flash Gordon]

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

You forgot one important disclaimer, which I think is sufficiently
different not to be covered by "etc": the 20 pound ball will suffer
significantly greater air resistance than the 10 pound ball (because
they are made of the same substance, so the heavier ball is perforce
bigger), and will thus fall at a slightly lower speed. We can get rid
of this irritant by specifying that the falls take place in an
evacuated pipe.

The balls could be the same size (think of hollow balls).

One could be made of fissile material close enough (one radioactive atom
below) to critical mass that it could explode before it hits the ground,
and as this is a quantum process it will only be determined whether or
not it did explode when someone observes it...

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Sure. It's objectively true that a 10 pound iron ball
and a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed [*] in
Earth's gravity, to give a simple example.

[*] With the obvious disclaimers about distance ranges,
precision of measurement, etc.

Okay. How about the following claim:

The claim that a 10 pound iron ball and a 20 pound iron ball
fall at the same speed in earth's gravity is true.

Is that one objectively true, or does it run into the language problem
you're pointing to about the Standard's meaning?

You're going in the right direction. If I may change your
example slightly without changing what I think is its intended
spirit, I would say that

The belief that "a 10 pound iron ball and a 20 pound iron ball
fall at the same speed in earth's gravity" is a correct belief.

is not objectively true (or objectively false). It's not
verifiable one way or the other because "belief" doesn't have
any physical existence. Similarly, I believe the statement

The assertion "a 10 pound iron ball and a 20 pound iron ball
fall at the same speed in earth's gravity" is objectively true.

is true, but the statement

The statement that "the assertion 'a 10 pound iron ball and
a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed in earth's gravity'
is objectively true" is objectively true.

is false. Whether or not any statement is objectively verifiable
can't be measured except by asking people whether they think it is;
hence, an assertion about whether a statement is objectively true is
always a matter of opinion and the assertion itself cannot be
verified objectively.

 

[Seebs]

You're going in the right direction. If I may change your
example slightly without changing what I think is its intended
spirit, I would say that

The belief that "a 10 pound iron ball and a 20 pound iron ball
fall at the same speed in earth's gravity" is a correct belief.

is not objectively true (or objectively false). It's not
verifiable one way or the other because "belief" doesn't have
any physical existence.

Ahh. Hmm.

I don't think I agree. Either beliefs have physical existence (existing
as patterns of some sort in the physical objects of which brains are made),
or there exist categories of things which have existence but aren't physical.
Either way, I consider them matters of objective reality.

Keep in mind, I consider logical and numeric things to be matters of objective
reality.

Similarly, I believe the statement

The assertion "a 10 pound iron ball and a 20 pound iron ball
fall at the same speed in earth's gravity" is objectively true.

is true, but the statement

The statement that "the assertion 'a 10 pound iron ball and
a 20 pound iron ball fall at the same speed in earth's gravity'
is objectively true" is objectively true.

is false. Whether or not any statement is objectively verifiable
can't be measured except by asking people whether they think it is;
hence, an assertion about whether a statement is objectively true is
always a matter of opinion and the assertion itself cannot be
verified objectively.

I don't think you have to ask them whether they think it is, you just have to
resolve the references into their referents and see whether the thing referred
to has the properties referred to.

.... uhm. I propose we take this to email if we want to keep going. My guess
is that a chart of the interest level in this thread around the time we got
into ontology looks like this one:

http://www.mediacurves.com/Religion/J7477-Scientology/Index.cfm

(Offtopic, but if you have ever wanted to see viewer opinions of an
advertisement knock you on the floor laughing, this is your chance.)

-s

 

[Tim Rentsch]

I disagree. Consider the claim:

Section 5.2.4.2.1 of the TC3 version of the C99 standard specifies
that the implementation-defined value of INT_MAX must be no less
than 32,767.

The standard exists independent of any observer, and has existence independent
of individual thought. While it's true that we can't observe it without some
kind of observer or thought, so what? Compare it with the claim:

The gravitational effects of an object massing 20 kilograms are
twice the gravitational effects of an object massing 10 kilograms.

This is subject to the same problem -- you can't make sense of this claim
without knowing the words. But it's *true* even if you don't know the
words.

The question isn't whether or not the claims are true, the question
is whether or not they can be verified without reference to any
observer's interpretation. I can make sense of both claims. In
the second case the claim can be verified objectively because
(in my opinion) its truth value can be measured by an instrument.
In the first case the claim cannot be verified objectively because
(again in my opinion) its truth value rests on whether certain text
"specifies" something else, and this condition depends on
who is interpreting that text.

For another example, consider the claim:

The word "Septermber" appears at the top of most pages of
the n1256 C Standard draft.

and the claim:

Because the word "Septermber" appears at the top of most
pages of the n1256 C Standard draft, all even-numbered
paragraphs should be ignored in determining what it specifies.

The first claim can be verified by direct observation. The
second claim can be verified (or refuted) only by asking
someone whether they think it's right -- its truth value
depends on who you ask.

Repeating myself from an earlier message -- the question of
whether or not a statement is objectively verifiable is not
itself verifiable objectively. So other people may disagree with
my assessment of what statements are objectively verifiable, and
if they do there really isn't anything I can say about that,
except perhaps something like, "well, if that's what you want to
think, I can't offer any objective proof you shouldn't."

The same could be said of the *meaning* of your example with the two
iron balls, and I think it would be wrong in both cases; while it's true
that a mind probably has to exist to apprehend meaning, it doesn't
necessarily follow that the thing meant can't have independent and objective
truth.

Right, but I wasn't making any claim about what the statement
about two iron balls "means". My claim was about how the
the physical objects will behave in the actual world, not
about the meaning of some sentence with those words in it.

Since the text of the standard really does exist, and the terminology is
defined, I don't think it's really outside the realm of objective reality,
even though all the claims you can make about it are going to be necessarily
fairly elaborately constructed if you want to make sure they're true.

Let me try phrasing it this way: What questions about the
Standard can be answered without asking any person what the
answer is? To be objective, a question must be answerable
without consulting the opinion of any person.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Following up to my own post:

I would like to offer a more interesting example.

1. Grilled cheese sandwiches are delicious.
2. As of this writing, Seebs thinks that grilled cheese sandwiches are
delicious.

The former is subjective; the latter is objective. It is true regardless
of anyone's opinions, or the observer, even though some observers might
not be able to know it to be true...

I think it's safer to say 2 this way:

2'. As of this writing, Seebs says he thinks that grilled cheese
sandwiches are delicious.

What you say can be verified objectively (using voice recognition
technology). What someone thinks can't be verified without asking
them, because thought reading technology is not yet advanced enough
(although, there are some indications that this may change sometime
soon).

Not counting the minor quibble, a very good example.