Objective Truth vs. Subjective Truth #neildegrassetyson

#subjective #objective #religion #jesus #muhammad #truthseekers #awakening #metavation

[steffenjensen]

I think what NdGT _means_ when he says "personal truth" is *belief*

[darkscarecrow]

Previously, leftist were into experimantal innovations while rightists were zealously strict on traditions. In modern day, they kind of switched. Rightists still hold onto the traditions, but not so aggressively while leftists make up their own canons on the spot and throw unpleasant tags on anyone who's not going along.

[Christus-Veritas]

*There is no such thing as a personal truth or "your truth." There is THE then there is your OPINION!*

[FSTPodcast]

Reality. He's talking about facts of reality commonly experienced, which is functionally different than an objective truth. Though there are objective truths that exist, which overlap with reality, the scientific method is not what creates nor determines them. Many of these objective truths are not provable using the scientific method because they are limited in their design and capacity to achieve results. Not everything that exists can be controlled, observed, or repeatable. He says in other videos that objective truth is something that is established by data and repeated experiments so much so that people AGREE on what is true. Ok... but he's also contradicted himself when he (correctly) states that consensus does not equal truth. Though he also says if you go against the concensus, statistically speaking, you are more likely to be wrong, which is also wrong because that's not how truth works. People can become convinced of anything, whether it's true or not. People can believe anything, whether it's true or not. Being convinced on something, having zeal or passion, is not what determines what is true. Likewise, people coming together on a common or shared belief, that also do not prove anything to be true. Objective truth can not be established by humans because it's not beholden to humans. It exists putside of and beyond humanity. It is true for all people everywhere at all times. There are laws of nature that were put in place to maintain order. There are laws that govern matter/material things and also laws that govern morality or immaterial things. Some things, such as love, justice, emotions, hatred, creativity, interest, attraction, innovation, and ideas, these are not material things. Our soul exists beyond our body and is not limited to material matter in its existence. Though, it uses the material body to experience and manafest things into existence. The immaterial and the material both exist. The scientific method is limited in its capacity to "prove" anything concerning immaterial things. And it is a human construct. And, what is published or studied or funded and established, it's all based on an institution that has incentives to prevent certain things from being allowed into the "big kid club" of established facts. He's saying anything that we can't prove with the scientific method that can't exist as an objective truth, which is blatantly absurd. We don't determine what exists. We only have certain tools to experience or observe what exists, and we can't observe everything that exists; we are clearly limited in that capacity among many others. We are not the arbiters of truth, and we are not the authority on that. Truth is revealed to us over time, and the scientific method is only one tool we are able to utilize to aid us in our efforts of finding them. But he is intentional in how he defines it and how he speaks of it so that he can put his own bias and world view into his claim or sfatement of fact about truth, as if he knows the truth regarding objective truth. He adds a bit of truth into a whole lot of nothing and tries to create a case that anything immaterial exists outside of objective truth. But if its objective, then all people, everywhere, throughout all of human hiatoey would have had access to the same understanding and run into the same dilemmas, meaning that any human has the capacity to have always known or felt or encountered or experienced any of these objective truths. But who are you to say they're not true, simply because you are limited in your knowledge, understanding experience, or tools to measure them? Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And just because it's not repeatable or controllable on our timeline in the way we desire it to be, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. He hit the nail on the head when he said the scientific method is a tool we use to reveal consistent patterns of reality in the universe. Yes, but its not the only tool! And it's limited in its capacity to reveal them. And that's not what "determines" what is objective, its what determines what many people BELIEVE is objective. But again, objective truth is not beholden or dependent on any belief in it, it exists as it exists, regsrdless. So just because Tyson does not believe it, does not mean it is not objectively true, it just means hes wrong, OR that it has yet to be proven, OR that it can only be experienced or observed using another tool, and that might be a bit too inconvenient and uncomfortable for him to admit.

[lovebauer]

What to do with all the religious people so convinced their subjective truth is objective?

[etaylor]

You cannot disprove that you are not just a brain in a vat jar. So, the only thing you can know for certain is that you exist now. Everything else is subjective.

[a.s.]

Okay, Neil, let’s straighten something out: Truth is a property of a statement that is present when (in referring to empirical facts about our world) the way the world is agrees with said assertion. Accordingly, there aren’t three kinds of truth in the way you said. There is only one kind of truth.

[erinblue]

Neil is clearly not a philosopher. The debate around the word objectivity is very old in human history and has never been objectively resolved😂 no pun intended

[Spectre]

The difference is your personal truth is called an opinion. You can believe in whatever you want but that doesnt make it true.

[daddada]

Is he saying objective truth or subjective truth?

[AdamCrawfordFitness]

Coming from a dude that thinks there’s more than 2 genders.

[abrother]

No. Objectively, Jesus is able to save people or he isn't. Mohamed is a prophet of God or he isn't. You can have your argument from a scientific perspective that this is not knowable, but not scientifically knowable is not the same as subjective. Neil's bias is stronger than his desire for truth.

Jesus is Lord! At his revealing every knee shall bow in heaven, and on earth, and under the Earth and declare that he is Lord. I am making a factual claim, so I am either right or I am wrong.