The Things Science Cannot Prove

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Of course I could have a legitimate reason to speeding (a close family member is in the hospital), and of course such mitigating circumstances exists, but those are not my feelings. I can't use my feelings or my opinions as mitigating circumstances for speeding.

 

But then a police officer can choose to exempt you from the law in that instance by not giving you a ticket. For example, if it was your first instance being caught speeding and you had a legitimate excuse as you mentioned, the police officer can choose to bend the rules to let you off and so the law becomes subjective based on your personal experience. But then, I think there's different degrees of subjectivity.

[chefranden]

 

1. Sure. But I'm talking about the intention of the law.

 

Does law makers make the law with the intention that is should be subjective?

 

And is it true that if a person has an opinion against the law, then it doesn't apply?

 

2. Can any criminal just say, "I don't like it," and undo the law?

 

Law: Bridge Cleanliness act.

 

Section 1. a: Thou shall not sleep under a bridge

 

Section 2. a: Anyone found sleeping under a bridge shall be fined One Hundred Dollars US.

b: Anyone that does not pay the fine shall spend 30 days in jail.

 

 

1. A police patrol seeking to protect the cleanliness of the Bong Bridge finds two men sleeping under the Bong Bridge. One man is homeless. The other man owns several successful business in town. Both are brought to the police station in handcuffs as befits such scoff laws. Both are booked and given the opportunity to post bail. The rich man promptly pays $500 and is released. The homeless man has $5.52 in small change and is unable to post bail. The homeless man is placed in jail where he spends 2 months waiting for a trial.

 

Both men go before the judge and both admit to sleeping under the Bong Bridge. Both men are fined $100 and court costs. The rich man pays his fine and goes his way. The homeless man cannot afford the fine and is sentenced to 30 days in jail. The judge lets the homeless man go for time already served.

 

Does the law intend to treat all offenders equally? Has the law actually treated both men equally?

 

2. The main subjectivity of the law lies in the application of the law, not in the offender.

 

However the offenders subjective evaluation may play some role as well. I wouldn't sleep under the bridge not for fear of the law, but for the comfort of my bed.

 

The criminal may decide the law does not mean him. And he may well be right, as in the case of President Bush. Remember the immortal words of President Nixon, "If the President does it, it is not illegal." Or the state may decide the law does not apply to the criminal as in the case of the Gitmo inmates.

 

 

I think that the sky should be green, but it's not. What I feel should be and what is haven't always been sharply super imposed.

That's what the word "objective" means. The sky is objectively blue. Your experience of a blue sky is subjective, but a certain range of radioactive rays are defined as the color "blue," and it is so regardless if you're blind or defiant. The definition of the word doesn't change because you feel like it should be different.

 

You missed the point altogether. The point was that you may want the law to be objective, but that doesn't make it objective.

 

 

Do the planets travel in non-perfect circles? Do they do this regardless of what you feel? Do they do this regardless of your opinion?

 

Again you have missed the point. You may want the law to be objective as the ditch digger wants the orbits to be circular. But wanting it doesn't make it so.

 

"Objective" does not mean perfect. The planets revolve around the sun, is an objective fact, not your subjective feeling about it. Unless you argue that all existence of all things are just in your head and a fantasy only pertaining to your mind.

 

Actually I'm trying to argue for an objective fact i.e. the law is subjective. The fantasy here is "law is objective."

 

 

If the law is subjective, then the law changes with the defendant's opinions and feelings. Does it?

 

Does every case in front of the judge end with the question: "Now defendant, what is your opinion about this law? Do you like it or not? If you don't like it, you're free to go."

 

Of course not. The subjectivity as I've mention above is in the application of the law. And the law is nothing but words on paper if it is not applied. Even if the law is as cut and dried as the Bridge Cleanliness Act, the outcome is not the same for everyone. Most law, like scripture, needs to be interpreted. That interpretation will be subjective, because it can't be otherwise.

 

 

I'm not talking about how flawed implementations of the law is defined. I'm talking about the definition of the word "objective." Objective means something which is made to be a unified thing, regardless of individuals opinions. That's the words meaning. It doesn't mean perfect. It doesn't mean correct implementation or correct execution. It only means something which is outside the individual's personal preference. It also means something which the collective can agree upon to be ruling over the individuals. In other words, it's subjective in one level, but it is objective on the personal level.

 

Perhaps we should argue the meaning of objective.

 

You supplied:synonyms:impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, evenhanded, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral.

 

Can any human or group of humans actually be any or all of the above? I don't think so and I think that cognitive science would back me up on that. The fantasy of objective law lies in the fantasy that words on a page can make people actually be impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, evenhanded, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, or neutral.

 

Noun

 

* S: (n) aim, object, objective, target (the goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable)) "the sole object of her trip was to see her children"

* S: (n) objective, objective lens, object lens, object glass (the lens or system of lenses in a telescope or microscope that is nearest the object being viewed)

 

Adjective

 

* S:

(adj) objective, nonsubjective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)

"an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

* S: (adj) objective, accusative (serving as or indicating the object of a verb or of certain prepositions and used for certain other purposes) "objective case"; "accusative endings"

* S: (adj) objective, documentary (emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation) "objective art"

* S: (adj) objective (belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events) "objective benefits"; "an objective example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"

 

I'm arguing that the the law cannot be "nonsubjective" because it requires subjects to operate it. Nothing humans do is "undistorted by emotion or personal bias". Anyone who thinks he/she can operate without emotion or personal bias is only fooling themselves. I've read some cases reported by neurologist Antonio Damasio in which the patients had their ability to emote damaged. These people found it very difficult or impossible to act even though they could still reason. These people wouldn't make good judges, because they couldn't choose a course of action.

 

It doesn't matter whether law is or is not objective on the page, because actions based on it have to take place in a subjective world. One can insist that it is objective, as one can insist that the orbits of the planets are circles, but that does not make it so. One can insist that the law should be objective as one could insist that the sky should be green, but that doesn't mean that it can be made so.

[Ouroboros]

 

 

Of course I could have a legitimate reason to speeding (a close family member is in the hospital), and of course such mitigating circumstances exists, but those are not my feelings. I can't use my feelings or my opinions as mitigating circumstances for speeding.

 

But then a police officer can choose to exempt you from the law in that instance by not giving you a ticket. For example, if it was your first instance being caught speeding and you had a legitimate excuse as you mentioned, the police officer can choose to bend the rules to let you off and so the law becomes subjective based on your personal experience. But then, I think there's different degrees of subjectivity.

Sure, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

Does the law exist outside the views and opinions of the person who are in the position to either break the law or conform to the law? In other words, objectivity is about the relationship between the driver and the speeding law, not the relationship between an agent (police officer) and the law. The officer is a different cogwheel in the formula, and the objective relationship I'm talking about is between the individual on which the law applies. The speeding law will not change because the speeding driver feels like the law is faulty. The law exists in the books and will be (to some degree) used against the driver, regardless if the driver think the law is wrong.

[Ouroboros]

One can insist that the law should be objective as one could insist that the sky should be green, but that doesn't mean that it can be made so.

Wait.

 

Your argument here supports my argument that there are things that are objective to our personal opinions.

 

Some things are a certain way, and we can't undo them because we just feel like it.

 

And there are some things that are this way just because that's nature.

 

Some things are this way because we as members of society agree to comply to them and allow them to be above our personal opinions.

 

What you're arguing is if the law is affected by opinions and feelings of different actors in society, but that's still not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if the law exists and is written and to some degree apply to a person who has a choice to follow the law or not. The word "objective" here is solely and purely about the relationship by the person who has the choice and the text of the law. The text of the law does not change because the person who can follow the law or not agrees to the law or not.

 

Let me change example then. Let's take something else than Law to explain that some things can be objective yet created by man.

 

Think about MS Windows. Does it exist? Does it exist because you feel like it (subjective)? Or does it exist because someone else created it, and it exists regardless of your opinion and feeling about it (objective)? Does Windows disappear in a poof into this air when you decide that it is crap? Or does it continue to exist regardless of what you think of it? I would argue that Windows exists objectively and not subjectively.

[Neon Genesis]

The text of the law does not change because the person who can follow the law or not agrees to the law or not.

 

 

What about the recent case where some Christian in North Carolina tried to get an atheist banned from serving public office? The law banning atheists from serving public office was clearly there in the text yet even the majority of Americans who otherwise hate atheists know this is an archaic law and if this Christian never brought it up, the law against atheists serving in North Carolina would have simply been ignored even though it's there in the texts.

[Shyone]

The text of the law does not change because the person who can follow the law or not agrees to the law or not.

 

 

What about the recent case where some Christian in North Carolina tried to get an atheist banned from serving public office? The law banning atheists from serving public office was clearly there in the text yet even the majority of Americans who otherwise hate atheists know this is an archaic law and if this Christian never brought it up, the law against atheists serving in North Carolina would have simply been ignored even though it's there in the texts.

Present in the text = objective.

 

Enforced is a different thing. Corruption is a different thing. "Discretion" is a different thing (unless discretion is part of the written law).

 

Opinion does not make the law disappear from the books. That's why bad laws, stupid laws, archaic laws etc. are repealed.

[Ouroboros]

The text of the law does not change because the person who can follow the law or not agrees to the law or not.

 

 

What about the recent case where some Christian in North Carolina tried to get an atheist banned from serving public office? The law banning atheists from serving public office was clearly there in the text yet even the majority of Americans who otherwise hate atheists know this is an archaic law and if this Christian never brought it up, the law against atheists serving in North Carolina would have simply been ignored even though it's there in the texts.

Exactly.

 

It can change, yes, but it doesn't change at that point in time for one single person because he doesn't like it right there and then.

 

The law changes. I never said anything different. Absolute=no change, but Objective=external to mind/opinion/feeling, which means Objective=can change.

 

One of the many points I'm getting at is: Objective ≠ Absolute.

[chefranden]

One can insist that the law should be objective as one could insist that the sky should be green, but that doesn't mean that it can be made so.

Wait.

 

Your argument here supports my argument that there are things that are objective to our personal opinions.

 

Some things are a certain way, and we can't undo them because we just feel like it.

 

And there are some things that are this way just because that's nature.

 

Some things are this way because we as members of society agree to comply to them and allow them to be above our personal opinions.

 

In other words something can be objective simply because enough people say it is? Under this criteria god must certanly exist.

 

Although I have my doubts, I will stipulate that the majority of people believe the law to be objective. Nevertheless I can't agree that this makes the law objective (non-subjective, undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena).

 

What you're arguing is if the law is affected by opinions and feelings of different actors in society, but that's still not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if the law exists and is written and to some degree apply to a person who has a choice to follow the law or not. The word "objective" here is solely and purely about the relationship by the person who has the choice and the text of the law. The text of the law does not change because the person who can follow the law or not agrees to the law or not.

 

I've not argued that the text of the law changes upon the whim of the individual, though the actual text of the law is often changed on the whim of certain individuals some of whom are corporations.

 

I'm just arguing that it is not relevant that the text of the law has an objective existence. Before law enters the sacred text it is argued and designed by people exercising their subjective emotions and biases. And again when the law is taken from the text to be used, it is used by people exercising their subjective emotions and biases.

 

Think about MS Windows. Does it exist? Does it exist because you feel like it (subjective)? Or does it exist because someone else created it, and it exists regardless of your opinion and feeling about it (objective)? Does Windows disappear in a poof into this air when you decide that it is crap? Or does it continue to exist regardless of what you think of it? I would argue that Windows exists objectively and not subjectively.

 

I have not argued that the law does not exist. I've only argued that it is not objective(non-subjective undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)

[Shyone]

 

I have not argued that the law does not exist. I've only argued that it is not objective(non-subjective undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)

Different definitions of objective.

 

Objective = exists independently.

 

A car is objective. If you define objective as being red, with leather seats, 4 cylinders and wire rims then there are very few objective cars.

[Johnnyboy76]

One of my favorite quotes is, "Truth is subjective."

A christian on some other site wanted to argue that truth is not subjective and used the example that if a bridge collapses then that is the absolute truth, and no one can argue that the bridge did not collapse because the evidence is clear. My response is that someone could come alone and say, oh no, that bridge was crushed by the foot of an invisible giant. The evidence is clear, the bridge is destroyed, therefore it was crushed by the invisible giant. So different ppl can draw different truths from the same evidence, therefore, truth is subjective. The christian still refused to agree, of course.

[Shyone]

One of my favorite quotes is, "Truth is subjective."

A christian on some other site wanted to argue that truth is not subjective and used the example that if a bridge collapses then that is the absolute truth, and no one can argue that the bridge did not collapse because the evidence is clear. My response is that someone could come alone and say, oh no, that bridge was crushed by the foot of an invisible giant. The evidence is clear, the bridge is destroyed, therefore it was crushed by the invisible giant. So different ppl can draw different truths from the same evidence, therefore, truth is subjective. The christian still refused to agree, of course.

They agreed that there are no invisible giants? But they worship one.

[Ouroboros]

In other words something can be objective simply because enough people say it is? Under this criteria god must certanly exist.

WTH? Aargh! I give up.

 

I can't explain it better than I have, but it seems like I fail every time I try to do it from a different angle.

 

To answer to your question above: No, that's not what I said. You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

 

We'll take up this discussion again at some later time.

[ebonileigh]

I've just stumbled onto this thread, and the original poster who began it, a theist and a philosopher said in one of his posts that he doesn't "subscribe to skepticism". So, he's saying that he doesn't buy into/believe in doubt and doubting. That I find extremely hard to accept especially as he claims to be a philosopher. Anyway, the fact that he said he doesn't believe in doubt and in the info in the sidebar says he believes in the god of abraham, so he's obviously set in his conviction about his belief in the old testament god, so what's he doing in these forums?

I'm new to this site and I don't understand why people like that drop by, I mean if he's not in a position of doubt and obviously he's not as he doesn't believe in it, then why go to ex-christian.net, why would you seek out this site? I don't get it.

[Shyone]

I've just stumbled onto this thread, and the original poster who began it, a theist and a philosopher said in one of his posts that he doesn't "subscribe to skepticism". So, he's saying that he doesn't buy into/believe in doubt and doubting. That I find extremely hard to accept especially as he claims to be a philosopher. Anyway, the fact that he said he doesn't believe in doubt and in the info in the sidebar says he believes in the god of abraham, so he's obviously set in his conviction about his belief in the old testament god, so what's he doing in these forums?

I'm new to this site and I don't understand why people like that drop by, I mean if he's not in a position of doubt and obviously he's not as he doesn't believe in it, then why go to ex-christian.net, why would you seek out this site? I don't get it.

Your probably talking about FeetofClay OrdinaryClay. At the bottom of their visits is evangelism, but there are many layers to their reasons.

 

1. Some are testing their apologetics to see which ones fly and which don't.

2. Some are challenging their own beliefs.

3. Some think they have all the answers, and if we knew those answers we would of course become believers (and tithe).

 

There may be other reasons for other people, and some are more dogmatic than others.

 

The opposite of "not believing in doubt" is to "believe in credulity."

 

I can live with that.

 

Besides, as long as they confine themselves to debate areas, they make for fine eating interesting debate.