An objectively wrong opinion is a belief about the real world that someone frames as a personal viewpoint but which directly contradicts verifiable facts. This is different from a purely subjective opinion.The principle of falsifiability explains why some claims can be objectively wrong. A claim is falsifiable if it is possible, at least in principle, to disprove it with observation or experiment. “The Earth orbits the Sun” is falsifiable, astronomers can check its accuracy with measurements. Likewise, “humans can live indefinitely without water” is falsifiable and demonstrably false.Some people’s opinions make factual claims about the world and are therefore falsifiable, Falsifiability matters because it protects us from holding onto unfounded ideas. Claims like “the Earth is flat,” “humans don’t need sleep,” or “plants don’t require sunlight” are falsifiable, and have been disproven through observation and testing.
>>24715457No.You mistake objective fact for extreme likelyhood.Which for practicality's sake is what is important, what is most likely, but its distinct from objectivity strictly meant.For most things we shouldn't strive for objectivity, but for likelihood given the information you have at hand. Copernican revolution and all.
>>24715462>For most things we shouldn't strive for objectivity, but for likelihood given the information you have at hand. Copernican revolution and all.We strive for objectivity not because we can perfectly reach it, but because it’s the only way to escape the distortions of bias. Probabilistic reasoning is useful, but probabilities still point to an underlying reality. Without an objective referent, “likelihood” collapses into subjective guessing with no standard of correction.
>>24715457>The principle of falsifiability explains why some claims can be objectively wrong.Not really. Most things are true because a culture delineates they're true. People who honestly believe things are true about religion, art or language simply are displaying culture dependent preferences. However thats not to say basic fundamental beliefs such as stabbing some unprovoked are not untrue. There are still fundamental things that if violated would tear the world apart but your position on the aforementioned religion, art or language is simply culture dependent. That includes negations such as atheism, postmodern art or baby talk.
>>24715474Yes, but this "objective reality" is purely hypothetical. Useful sure as a construct, but still hypothetical. Probabilites tend to point towards a reality, but we dont actually know if it is real. What appears to be in reality a square may be a cube when another factor is added, and maybe a hypercube after that.
>>24715503That's not the wisdom you think it is. You are grasping as straws to justify your superstitions.
>Claims like “the Earth is flat,” “humans don’t need sleep,” or “plants don’t require sunlight” are falsifiable, and have been disproven through observation and testing.These aren't opinions you ESL faggot. An opinion is something like "Star Trek is shit"
>>24715838Not Paki OP, but opinions are broader than matters of taste, and can take up matters of fact when they're either in error or lacking knowledge. So, for example, "the earth moves around the sun" is a claim from knowledge if you know the evidence and proofs, but is an opinion if you accept the claim as given while lacking that evidence or proofs.
>>24715750What superstition? I think I am pretty logical, and I believe in the utility of the scientific method. I just distinguish between total truth and statistical likelyhood.IDK if total truth even exists, Im not arguing for gods or ghosts, just that as limited beings, our knowledge is limited. We estimate something to a 99 percentile, then leave a possible x factor for any possible unaccounted for variable.
>>24716415Apologies. Most of the time people use that as a rationale for their jewish paracosm
>>24716438Well, I would be lying if I said I didnt have some affinity for Jewish paracosm, but thats largely because the development of philosophy is kind of intertwined with it from Platonic ideals to the nature of infinity and finite.Pretty sure people coming from a religious angle would assert there is an obective reality though in thier God, but I am not sure about that. I am more aproaching it from a Hume empiricism and Kantian perspective were metaphysical truths are hard to validate so we just have to go "we dont know" and leave it at that.Hume as a big contributor to empericism even doubted the capital t Truth of causation, you cant KNOW that one action CAUSES another strictly ment, but its a fine enough aproximation for practical use since our experiences tend to align with this notion.
>>24716466If that kind of skepticism applies to the idea of knowing anything, then couldn't it be infinitely recursive? Why doesn't it also apply to the statement 'we don't know'? Of course it all boils down to the semantic details of what one means by "know", though.
>>24716636I mean in a way, but practically, enough of experience aligns with a picture that we can have a "going sense" of things. the world COULD have been made 5 minutes ago, memories, fossils underground, and all, but enough things align to support that our universe as we know it has probably been here for billions of billions of years. Its just important to realise that we keep adding 9's to our 99.999% likelyhood of something, and there is theoetically a non 0 sum that we are wrong. Doesnt mean you shouldn't hedge your bets on those 99%ers though. For the most part, we dont need infinite truths, just satisfactory likelyhoods.>Why doesn't it also apply to the statement 'we don't know'it does, we dont know that we dont know either. I think we always function in terms of partial knowledge. never fully aware, but also never fully ignorant.
