SkyMuser
@skymuser.bsky.social
Woke. Progressive. Liberal.
Social Democrat. Anti-Socialism.
(He / Him)
Social Democrat. Anti-Socialism.
(He / Him)
The problem is subjective claims can’t be fallible. Only objective claims can be fallible b/c fallibilism holds that we can be, and often are, wrong about what we claim. But subjectivism holds that we can’t be wrong, we can only fail to live up to our own standards — its “truths” are mind-dependent.
January 31, 2026 at 12:45 AM
The problem is subjective claims can’t be fallible. Only objective claims can be fallible b/c fallibilism holds that we can be, and often are, wrong about what we claim. But subjectivism holds that we can’t be wrong, we can only fail to live up to our own standards — its “truths” are mind-dependent.
Ok, first: “Objects that capture reality with degrees of accuracy”? This describes the an objective claim. Second, you’re conflating “objective claim” with “objective truth” itself, which I never said. But what I did say is that science is fallible, which is what you’re confusing with subjectivity.
January 31, 2026 at 12:42 AM
Ok, first: “Objects that capture reality with degrees of accuracy”? This describes the an objective claim. Second, you’re conflating “objective claim” with “objective truth” itself, which I never said. But what I did say is that science is fallible, which is what you’re confusing with subjectivity.
Also, you keep trying to say I’m wrong about objectivity. Is this an objective claim of yours that I’m wrong? Or is it just your subjective opinion? Either you concede my point that I’m right about this, or you admit that your claim that I’m wrong is equally as valid as my claim that I’m right.
January 31, 2026 at 12:37 AM
Also, you keep trying to say I’m wrong about objectivity. Is this an objective claim of yours that I’m wrong? Or is it just your subjective opinion? Either you concede my point that I’m right about this, or you admit that your claim that I’m wrong is equally as valid as my claim that I’m right.
Not sure what you mean by that first bit. You’re still unclear. And again, scientific models of what? To make predictions in what? The external world. An objective claim. Of course, scientist think they can make claims about reality, just never with 100% certainty.
January 31, 2026 at 12:34 AM
Not sure what you mean by that first bit. You’re still unclear. And again, scientific models of what? To make predictions in what? The external world. An objective claim. Of course, scientist think they can make claims about reality, just never with 100% certainty.
I’d recommend David Detmer’s “Challenging Postmodernism” and Paul Boghossian’s “Fear of Knowledge” if you’re interested in what analytic philosophers generally think of this position: most analytic philosophers are objectivists about this topic. Dennett likely was too.
January 31, 2026 at 12:30 AM
I’d recommend David Detmer’s “Challenging Postmodernism” and Paul Boghossian’s “Fear of Knowledge” if you’re interested in what analytic philosophers generally think of this position: most analytic philosophers are objectivists about this topic. Dennett likely was too.
With all due respect, what are you talking about? Our debate is entirely conceptual. Did you even read what I said. As I’ve said before, I think your disagreement is due to misunderstanding what the words in question here mean.
January 31, 2026 at 12:25 AM
With all due respect, what are you talking about? Our debate is entirely conceptual. Did you even read what I said. As I’ve said before, I think your disagreement is due to misunderstanding what the words in question here mean.
Additionally, I have no idea how someone explaining something as being “mind-independent” can possibly be interpreted as being a “long winded way” of calling something “subjective” just in the face of it. The whole point of the word “subjective” is to indicate dependence on the mind.
January 30, 2026 at 10:33 AM
Additionally, I have no idea how someone explaining something as being “mind-independent” can possibly be interpreted as being a “long winded way” of calling something “subjective” just in the face of it. The whole point of the word “subjective” is to indicate dependence on the mind.
No, I explained how it’s the opposite. The only way to believe it isn’t is to confuse the meaning of terms or to redefine the terms in a way that isn’t useful and will cause confusion. For instance, is “That is a very long winded way of saying not objective” an objective claim or a subjective one?
January 30, 2026 at 10:30 AM
No, I explained how it’s the opposite. The only way to believe it isn’t is to confuse the meaning of terms or to redefine the terms in a way that isn’t useful and will cause confusion. For instance, is “That is a very long winded way of saying not objective” an objective claim or a subjective one?
Youre confusing fallibilism with objectivism. An objective method to determining aspects of the external world can be fallible while still being objective. Again, “objective” just means that the truth of the claim at hand is mind-independent. Statistics is fundamentally about making those claims.
January 30, 2026 at 10:26 AM
Youre confusing fallibilism with objectivism. An objective method to determining aspects of the external world can be fallible while still being objective. Again, “objective” just means that the truth of the claim at hand is mind-independent. Statistics is fundamentally about making those claims.
Data of what? Analyzed to say what? Something of the external world. Yes, this requires a subject to interpret, but then if that’s what was meant by “subjective”, then nothing could be objective. By that standard you’d have to agree that I’m not wrong now since our disagreement would be subjective.
January 30, 2026 at 10:22 AM
Data of what? Analyzed to say what? Something of the external world. Yes, this requires a subject to interpret, but then if that’s what was meant by “subjective”, then nothing could be objective. By that standard you’d have to agree that I’m not wrong now since our disagreement would be subjective.
Nope, model building in science is objective. It’s attempting to make a mind-independent claim about the world, determining what is the case regardless of what anyone believes. It’s fallible, but that’s not the same thing as being subjective and is compatible with being objective.
January 29, 2026 at 7:39 PM
Nope, model building in science is objective. It’s attempting to make a mind-independent claim about the world, determining what is the case regardless of what anyone believes. It’s fallible, but that’s not the same thing as being subjective and is compatible with being objective.
Predictive and explanatory power of what? The external world. Science is trying to make a claim about something objective, not subjective. To say contrary doesn’t make coherent sense unless you’re an idealist or solipsist. To even say I’m incorrect right now you have to be making an objective claim.
January 29, 2026 at 7:36 PM
Predictive and explanatory power of what? The external world. Science is trying to make a claim about something objective, not subjective. To say contrary doesn’t make coherent sense unless you’re an idealist or solipsist. To even say I’m incorrect right now you have to be making an objective claim.
The people responding to Pervis Purves in such an, ironically, smug and confident way despite their position is something. Purves’ claim is not only a common position among academics such as David Detmer, Paul Boghossian, Thomas Nagel, etc., but the contrary position is widely held to be incoherent.
January 29, 2026 at 5:28 PM
The people responding to Pervis Purves in such an, ironically, smug and confident way despite their position is something. Purves’ claim is not only a common position among academics such as David Detmer, Paul Boghossian, Thomas Nagel, etc., but the contrary position is widely held to be incoherent.
For math and science to be subjective (mind-dependent) implies a Berkeleyian / idealist or even a solipsistic metaphysical worldview in order to be self-referentially coherent. Otherwise it’s just a self-referentially incoherent claim that can’t justify itself, for it itself is merely subjective.
January 29, 2026 at 5:18 PM
For math and science to be subjective (mind-dependent) implies a Berkeleyian / idealist or even a solipsistic metaphysical worldview in order to be self-referentially coherent. Otherwise it’s just a self-referentially incoherent claim that can’t justify itself, for it itself is merely subjective.
That doesn’t follow. Two people making objective claims can disagree. It’s just that at least one of them is wrong. Also, subjectivity merely denotes mind-dependence, while objectivity denotes mind-independence. When one does math and science, one is making claims one believes are mind-independent.
January 29, 2026 at 5:14 PM
That doesn’t follow. Two people making objective claims can disagree. It’s just that at least one of them is wrong. Also, subjectivity merely denotes mind-dependence, while objectivity denotes mind-independence. When one does math and science, one is making claims one believes are mind-independent.
While I believe the humanities are important despite being a subjective school of thought, how is what he said wrong?
January 29, 2026 at 10:26 AM
While I believe the humanities are important despite being a subjective school of thought, how is what he said wrong?
Which are both objective claims: one about the limitations of mathematics and all formal logic, the other about how the material world works.
January 29, 2026 at 10:24 AM
Which are both objective claims: one about the limitations of mathematics and all formal logic, the other about how the material world works.
Equality, I would say, which in the context of his fight implied freedom as well. But equal rights, equality, or even equity are the words that I would use to some up what he was about first and foremost.
January 19, 2026 at 8:55 PM
Equality, I would say, which in the context of his fight implied freedom as well. But equal rights, equality, or even equity are the words that I would use to some up what he was about first and foremost.
Which is hilarious because if Stroud was playing the Chargers, I think he would have won his game too.
January 19, 2026 at 4:40 PM
Which is hilarious because if Stroud was playing the Chargers, I think he would have won his game too.
She never should have gotten the prize. The Nobel Committee are a bunch of idiots.
January 8, 2026 at 9:57 PM
She never should have gotten the prize. The Nobel Committee are a bunch of idiots.