What is the Difference Between Objective and Subjective Truth?

[baywax]

Generally I'd like it if we could get some opinions on what truth is. Anyone offering an accepted or personal definition or description is welcome to do so as well.

Personally my take on what truth is... is two fold.

• One there are absolutes when it comes to truth...

• two... there is a truth for every moment in time and for every person experiencing it.

So, objectively, truth must be an absolute. While subjectively, truth is continuously changing for the person experiencing life.

Thank you!

 

[Moridin]

Truth could be said to be a measure of the correlation between a proposition and reality.

 

[fleem]

The only proven statement is "I think, therefore I am", which is better said, "There is order". So we can say it is true that there is order. Everything beyond that are just axioms.

I strongly suspect that there is no set of super-rules that has guided the growth of reality. Rather, it seems that ALL POSSIBLE RULES are, in fact, real. However only non-paradoxical rules/events have evolved far enough above that chaotic foundation to be recognizable (like "I think, therefore I am"). So by viewing the most fundamental interactions, we might get a glimpse of true randomness (which is what all-possible-events (including paradoxical ones) would look like to orderly beings). Thus QM is a statistical theory and ~maybe~ there are no hidden variables. What's also really interesting is that ANY non-paradoxical idea you can think of must be real! Note that I'm not saying any statement you make is real. I'm saying any non-paradoxical statement you make, is real. For example it is not paradoxical for me to say something that, if true, would be a paradox--like "there's a giant space potato orbiting mars" when a later examination shows no such potato. Anyway, this rather opens the door for some interesting possibilities in the realm of what we often call "supernatural". There are some supernatural theories that are not paradoxical. And remember that nothing is proven except "I think, therefore i am".

 

[baywax]

Truth could be said to be a measure of the correlation between a proposition and reality.

Does truth have to be spoken or does it simply exist as a state or is it the "measure".?

 

[baywax]

The only proven statement is "I think, therefore I am", which is better said, "There is order". So we can say it is true that there is order. Everything beyond that are just axioms.

I strongly suspect that there is no set of super-rules that has guided the growth of reality. Rather, it seems that ALL POSSIBLE RULES are, in fact, real. However only non-paradoxical rules/events have evolved far enough above that chaotic foundation to be recognizable (like "I think, therefore I am"). So by viewing the most fundamental interactions, we might get a glimpse of true randomness (which is what all-possible-events (including paradoxical ones) would look like to orderly beings). Thus QM is a statistical theory and ~maybe~ there are no hidden variables. What's also really interesting is that ANY non-paradoxical idea you can think of must be real! Note that I'm not saying any statement you make is real. I'm saying any non-paradoxical statement you make, is real. For example it is not paradoxical for me to say something that, if true, would be a paradox--like "there's a giant space potato orbiting mars" when a later examination shows no such potato. Anyway, this rather opens the door for some interesting possibilities in the realm of what we often call "supernatural". There are some supernatural theories that are not paradoxical. And remember that nothing is proven except "I think, therefore i am".

What is true one moment may be false during the next. Is this a paradox or a truth?

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

The common definition is that a statement is true when it matches reality. But I disagree I think truth is a deeper concept than reality. While reality for one observer will be something else from the reality of another observer, until these observers meet again, the fact that we can agree upon this is the concept of truth. If there was no truth there would be no real way to have our two opinions finally meet.
Sorry if this sounds like a very functional definition of truth.

 

[a4mula]

0<1

Fundamental mathematics are the only real truths that I've been able to conceive. Even Descartes was misled by making the assumption that he must exist. Our perception is not evidence of existence, merely evidence of perception. Basing reality on perception is about as flawed a concept as exists (or doesn't!).

In order to operate in our reality we compromise. We settle for what we believe are truths. We come to agreements on things that we feel are true. For a working model it serves its purpose. We agree that what goes up must come down. We agree that the universe around us is physical and real. We agree that the sun is yellow, the grass is green, and the sky is blue. All of these things are agreed truths. We cannot however prove any single agreement that has ever been made, regardless of how true it may seem.

So what is truth? Considering the concept of truth is manmade I suspect it's fair enough to use the the definition of agreeable. If you're seeking "real" truths, well I believe that is beyond our scope. We are unable to see the forest through the trees so to speak. If our entire existence is nothing more than illusion then who's to say what lies behind the curtain of Oz?

 

[Tibarn]

The only proven statement is "I think, therefore I am", which is better said, "There is order". So we can say it is true that there is order. Everything beyond that are just axioms.

And those proofs in turn rely on other axioms. For starters, you'd have to define what you mean by "I", "think", and "am"; then you'd have to prove that you, in fact, think. Following that, one would need to demonstrate that if something thinks, then it exists. None of these have been proven without relying on other "obvious" statements. You can't prove something from nothing. Ultimately, something needs to be taken as self-evident and not in need of proof if you plan on proving anything. Of course, your initial assumption would then be open to question.

 

[JoeDawg]

Fundamental mathematics are the only real truths that I've been able to conceive.

Mathematics is true by definition, but it is abstraction, generalizations, so it corresponds to nothing concrete.

Even Descartes was misled by making the assumption that he must exist. Our perception is not evidence of existence, merely evidence of perception. Basing reality on perception is about as flawed a concept as exists (or doesn't!).

How is this flawed?

 

[baywax]

I wanted to list some of the types of truths that have developed over time, among humans.

Basic Truth = I drink therefore I am (without water I would be dead within 8 days)

Half Truth = the sun also rises (from our perspective it appears to rise so this is half true since the whole truth is our planet rotates our position to a point where we can see the sun)

Personal Truth = Personal truths reflect physiological attributes, psychological tendencies and the learning and experiences of an individual.

Social Truth = A social truth is what a distinct group perceives to “be so.” Social truths reflect group history, customs, and values. For example, to group “A” it may be true that the neighboring group, group “B,” is the enemy and thus a threat. But group “C” might not find this to be so.

Universal Truth = A universal truth is one that all sufficiently intelligent and educated observers, from this planet or any other (should they exist), would conclude to “be so.” For instance, the proportion of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is 3.141592 ( . . . ). This is a universal truth. Any capable, unbiased individual could verify that truth. Similarly, that energy is equivalent to rest mass times the speed of light squared, is also a universal truth.

If you have some categories to add to these ones please feel free to do so.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

I would be careful with the universal truth. There is a difference in saying that it exists and that you know what it is. The last statement has paradoxical monsters waiting for you.

 

[WaveJumper]

Even Descartes was misled by making the assumption that he must exist. Our perception is not evidence of existence, merely evidence of perception. Basing reality on perception is about as flawed a concept as exists (or doesn't!).

Mathematics is true by definition, but it is abstraction, generalizations, so it corresponds to nothing concrete.

How is this flawed?

Reality as we experience it is merely perception. If you want to argue this point, you'd be advocating 19 century physics that is most certainly very wrong. I don't think you meant this so maybe i misunderstood your point. You are right that mathematics is an abstraction, but isn't our whole classical world with its incredible human drama just an abstraction embedded in a quantum field, manifested by the 4 fundamental forces? Surely, one could claim that it had existed long before we appeared here, but the evidence of reality's abstract nature has been overwhelming. Even the notion of time, that gives us the security that everything has existed long before us, is smeared all over the place as if reality is trying to slip away from every endeavour to place it within fixed limits(it's an important point and i don't remember this having been discussed here).

 

[WaveJumper]

Generally I'd like it if we could get some opinions on what truth is.

For me, there is only one truth - the ultimate truth - what is reality and why are we here? The rest is just minor details that facilitate and make the ultimate truth possible.

 

[WaveJumper]

I would be careful with the universal truth. There is a difference in saying that it exists and that you know what it is. The last statement has paradoxical monsters waiting for you.

The so-called objective realism paradoxes. How sad really.

 

[Civilized]

Truth is not the name of anything, but your question presupposes that this were the case.

A less biased question would be "in what circumstances is it correct to use the word 'truth'?"

But that's an easy question that we all know the answer to. The philosophical problem of "what is truth?" occurs because the grammar of our language forces 'truth' to be a noun, and we reify all nouns, if those that should not be such as 'truth', 'space','time', etc.

This is was L. Wittgenstein's approach, in the book Philosophical Investigations. The example he develops in detail is that "'pain' is not the name of anything." L.W. tells us that "the meaning of the word is its use." L.W. treats philosophical questions such as "What is truth?" as part of an illness that comes about by a misapplication of language, and the goal becomes finding a way to cure ourselves of these problems.

 

[Civilized]

Reality as we experience it is merely perception. If you want to argue this point, you'd be advocating 19 century physics that is most certainly very wrong. I don't think you meant this so maybe i misunderstood your point. You are right that mathematics is an abstraction, but isn't our whole classical world with its incredible human drama just an abstraction embedded in a quantum field, manifested by the 4 fundamental forces?

I couldn't resist; it sounds like you're advocating 20th century physics that is most certainly very wrong, from a early 22th century (equal time gap) point of view. The point is this: quantum fields, four forces, etc are just a model, how can you say that this abstraction is any more real than the human experience? After all, the proofs of these scientific theories are in the experiments, but the experiments are nothing other than human experiences. Therefore the standard model can never be more certain than our experiences (the certainty of our experiences is an upper bound on the certainty of any non-mathematical truths). Therefore it is illogical to ignore the reality of your own experience but embrace the reality of abstract scientific models whose validation is based on other peoples experiences (i.e. experiments).

 

[rsp]

Does truth have to be spoken or does it simply exist as a state or is it the "measure".?

If the truth was spoken and there was no one there to hear it, does it exist?

 

[baywax]

Truth is not the name of anything, but your question presupposes that this were the case.

A less biased question would be "in what circumstances is it correct to use the word 'truth'?"

But that's an easy question that we all know the answer to. The philosophical problem of "what is truth?" occurs because the grammar of our language forces 'truth' to be a noun, and we reify all nouns, if those that should not be such as 'truth', 'space','time', etc.

This is was L. Wittgenstein's approach, in the book Philosophical Investigations. The example he develops in detail is that "'pain' is not the name of anything." L.W. tells us that "the meaning of the word is its use." L.W. treats philosophical questions such as "What is truth?" as part of an illness that comes about by a misapplication of language, and the goal becomes finding a way to cure ourselves of these problems.

This is an interesting take on the idea of truth. I'd tend to agree with L Wittgenstein's view of our misapplication of language... except that I would imagine that we are the top authority when it comes to each of our languages. Whatever language that may be. And how we use our language is how the language is supposed to be used.

It's not up to the linguists to decide how a language should be used but for them to study how the language is used and to make note of this usage in the history and structure of linguistics. I know that words have been bastardized and completely diluted in their meanings by media or by popular culture... but this is not an illness. It is communication and proof that each individual is not alone in their thinking or in their actions. Proof that our truths and our ideas are not illusion, but communicable parcels of information.

 

[baywax]

If the truth was spoken and there was no one there to hear it, does it exist?

I don't think it has to be spoken or written to be truth. I don't think truth even has to be observed to be a truth. Don't ask me why but I think whether there is nothing or everything there is the truth of that state "taking place".

 

[JoeDawg]

Reality as we experience it is merely perception. If you want to argue this point, you'd be advocating 19 century physics that is most certainly very wrong. I don't think you meant this so maybe i misunderstood your point.

I'm not sure what you mean by '19 century physics', but I'm going to assume you are making some sort of ontological argument here. Descartes was not. 'I think therefore I am' is an epistemological argument.

I would argue that reality is based on perception, but we clearly have an ability to create abstractions and models from perception, mathematics is an example of this.

You are right that mathematics is an abstraction, but isn't our whole classical world with its incredible human drama just an abstraction embedded in a quantum field, manifested by the 4 fundamental forces?

From the perspective of what exists, ontology, yes. But 'quantum fields' and 'fundamental forces' are really just human explanations, and predictions, they are concepts, based on our limited, if often extrapolated, 'classical' level of experience. The 'physical' reality beyond our senses can be represented to a degree, but even a theory of everything would only be a description of everything, not the actual existing everything.

Descartes was no describing what exists, he was talking about the nature of knowledge. From a modern perpective Descartes is often hard to understand, because he didn't have much use for empirical philosophy, on which science is so based. But what he was discussing is still essential to science on a foundational level. Gravity for instance, may be fundamental to physics, but Descartes was concerned with what was fundamental to knowledge, itself.

Surely, one could claim that it had existed long before we appeared here, but the evidence of reality's abstract nature has been overwhelming. Even the notion of time, that gives us the security that everything has existed long before us, is smeared all over the place as if reality is trying to slip away from every endeavour to place it within fixed limits(it's an important point and i don't remember this having been discussed here).

Time is slippery.

 

[WaveJumper]

Reality as we experience it is merely perception. If you want to argue this point, you'd be advocating 19 century physics that is most certainly very wrong. I don't think you meant this so maybe i misunderstood your point. You are right that mathematics is an abstraction, but isn't our whole classical world with its incredible human drama just an abstraction embedded in a quantum field, manifested by the 4 fundamental forces?

I couldn't resist; it sounds like you're advocating 20th century physics that is most certainly very wrong, from a early 22th century (equal time gap) point of view. The point is this: quantum fields, four forces, etc are just a model, how can you say that this abstraction is any more real than the human experience? After all, the proofs of these scientific theories are in the experiments, but the experiments are nothing other than human experiences. Therefore the standard model can never be more certain than our experiences (the certainty of our experiences is an upper bound on the certainty of any non-mathematical truths). Therefore it is illogical to ignore the reality of your own experience but embrace the reality of abstract scientific models whose validation is based on other peoples experiences (i.e. experiments).

Well, you have to take into account that ALL of our physical model are approximations. They are not truths, but they are slowly gliding us to the Truth. Every new experimentally verified theory is a better description of what 'exists'. Newton's model is still correct, but to a point and from a particular point of view. Einstein's model is a yet better description of what's 'out there'. A 22nd century model will likely be an even better description. And because modern physics has been pushing us away from the reality portrayed by our 5 senses, we now know that what we appear to be perceiving is not the real deal. Even to a disinterested in physics by-stander, it would be clear that something is 'wrong' with our perceptions just by looking at the models that theoretical physicists are building to explain reality:

1. Universe being a projection(hologram)
2. Universe being 11-dimensional
3. Consciousness creating the universe
4. Universe consisting of a single electron going forward and backward in time
5. Near infinite number of worlds created at every instant
6. A purely mathematical universe
7. The universe being informational(it from bit)
8. The universe being created by a quantum fluctuation in a space-like medium
9. ...All these theories are of course not evidence that brilliant ultra-smart physicists are going insane. These are evidence that scientists are reaching much deeper than the surface.

Therefore it is illogical to ignore the reality of your own experience but embrace the reality of abstract scientific models whose validation is based on other peoples experiences (i.e. experiments).

If what is visible on the surface is a sufficient for you, OK.

After all, the proofs of these scientific theories are in the experiments, but the experiments are nothing other than human experiences.

So? Aren't we trying to explain our experiences by digging deeper into what has proved to be a far wider and more mysterious reality that it seemed a little more than a century ago? What can be be said to exist with 100% certainty, apart from our experiences?

Therefore the standard model can never be more certain than our experiences (the certainty of our experiences is an upper bound on the certainty of any non-mathematical truths).

This is wrong. What we experience is almost completely irrelevant to theoretical physics. Ask any real physicist if they require realism to be able to probe far beyond the realm of sensory experience and build working models of how everything is functioning. Or ask him if they care about human perceptions and sensory data at all?

If you want the Truth(what is reality and what is our place in it), you can't rely on the 5 senses, counter-intuitive as it may seem, we'd still be thinking the Earth was flat, not round. Your 5 senses are just mildly scratching the surface, often in a very deceiving way.

The most commonplace things - the difference between yesterday and tomorrow, between here and there - continue to baffle the greatest minds in science, not because physicists lack the intelligence to put into words what sensory experience is feeding them, but because it is not the whole story and because reality simply refuses to be framed. In the words of one of the greatest physicists of our time Brian Greene in The Fabric of the Cosmos:

"The over-arching lesson that has emerged…is that human experience is often a misleading guide to the true nature of reality….much of what we experience physically…turns out not to be the reality of the world…"

If i had to sum up what 20th century physics says about reality it would be close to - “reality” remains ambiguous, ill-defined, flexible and fluid-like until it is experienced.

 

[Moridin]

If you want the Truth(what is reality and what is our place in it), you can't rely on the 5 senses, counter-intuitive as it may seem, we'd still be thinking the Earth was flat, not round.

This is clearly incorrect. The position that the Earth is spherical-like was reached by the evidence of the senses. What you are opposing are hasty conclusions regarding the evidence of the senses, rather than an attack on the validity of the senses. Further, you are instantly faced by a large amount of contradictions. If the senses are invalid, you cannot take part in a rational discussion, since rational discussion presupposes the validity of the senses. If you cannot trust your senses, then you cannot trust that you are reading the text I wrote when reading this post, or that I am reading the text you wrote in your post.

 

[WaveJumper]

If you want the Truth(what is reality and what is our place in it), you can't rely on the 5 senses, counter-intuitive as it may seem, we'd still be thinking the Earth was flat, not round.

This is clearly incorrect. The position that the Earth is spherical-like was reached by the evidence of the senses. What you are opposing are hasty conclusions regarding the evidence of the senses, rather than an attack on the validity of the senses. Further, you are instantly faced by a large amount of contradictions. If the senses are invalid, you cannot take part in a rational discussion, since rational discussion presupposes the validity of the senses. If you cannot trust your senses, then you cannot trust that you are reading the text I wrote when reading this post, or that I am reading the text you wrote in your post.

Read what i said - "If you want the Truth..." meaning a thorough description of reality(as explained later in the same post). I never said all senses are incorrect at all times. If anyone ever said such a thing that's you, in your above quoted post. You are taking my words completely out of context, making a mumbo jumbo of them and declaring that I've said something that i clearly have not.

I don't know how i can say this simpler - Sensory input and perception is a misleading and wrong description of reality. If you can't comprehend the meaning behind this statement, i think you have to move on or find some other thread. I also speak German and Russian, if that would be of help.

If the senses are invalid, you cannot take part in a rational discussion, since rational discussion presupposes the validity of the senses. If you cannot trust your senses, then you cannot trust that you are reading the text I wrote when reading this post, or that I am reading the text you wrote in your post.

Where did i say this?

When i said:

“reality” remains ambiguous, ill-defined, flexible and fluid-like until it is experienced.

it goes without saying that when reality is experienced(by the senses- How else?) it is no longer ill-defined and ambiguous and we get the correct picture of what's what, location, time, etc parameters. If i have to write lengthy explanations to every sentence i put together, reading the forum contents would be quite a strenuous task.

 

[JoeDawg]

They are not truths, but they are slowly gliding us to the Truth.

Truth is an assessment, I don't think you can so easily divorce 'truth' from point of view.

Every new experimentally verified theory is a better description of what 'exists'.

That is simply not true. Just because a theory fits the facts doesn't mean it is correct, let alone, better than a previous theory.

Newton's model is still correct, but to a point and from a particular point of view.

Actually one of the things that Newton used to emphasize, was that he was simply describing reality, not explaining it. This is one of the problems with QM, the math works, the experiments work, but the explanations are nonsensical.

These are evidence that scientists are reaching much deeper than the surface.

Or that they are out of their depth.

 

[baywax]

I never said all senses are incorrect at all times.

Our senses are always correct. They are simple,biological functions acting as receptors and transmitters. Its our interpretation of what our senses pick up that is either correct or incorrect.

This shows how truth is inherent in all phenomenon because the phenomenon is the truth "of the matter". Its only when a phenomenon or truth is interpreted incorrectly by our "intellect" that inefficient "assessments" are made. When we use the word truth we are talking about the actuality of a situation or phenomenon. Not the inevitably wrong interpretations or the blatant manipulations of its "true" actuality.

 

[Moridin]

I don't know how i can say this simpler - Sensory input and perception is a misleading and wrong description of reality. If you can't comprehend the meaning behind this statement, i think you have to move on or find some other thread.

Again, this is a clearly contradictory statement. If sensory input and perception is a misleading and wrong description of reality, then you have no reason whatsoever to take part in a rational discussion. If you know that you are not reading the words that I actually wrote, but misleading and wrong descriptions of them, you are not at all justified in attempting to have a rational discussion like this. Thus, your act of trying to argue in favor of your perspective in a rational discussion undermines itself. It is just as irrational to claim what you are claiming as there are to state that it is true that no truth exists, or to verbally assert that all language is meaningless or claim that you have a moral obligation to hold that no moral obligations exist.

If I shout in your ear that you cannot hear (or that your hearing is compromised), the chosen method of communication undermines my position. If I attempt to write and post a letter to you claiming that you cannot read and that your post never gets delivered, then the act itself presupposes the falsehood of my position. It is a formal fallacy called the stolen concept fallacy.

If you cannot understand this basic inconsistency in your position, then maybe you should try to do something easier, like building a sand castle.

 

[WaveJumper]

Again, this is a clearly contradictory statement. If sensory input and perception is a misleading and wrong description of reality, then you have no reason whatsoever to take part in a rational discussion. If you know that you are not reading the words that I actually wrote, but misleading and wrong descriptions of them, you are not at all justified in attempting to have a rational discussion like this. Thus, your act of trying to argue in favor of your perspective in a rational discussion undermines itself. It is just as irrational to claim what you are claiming as there are to state that it is true that no truth exists, or to verbally assert that all language is meaningless or claim that you have a moral obligation to hold that no moral obligations exist.

It might be easier for you if you substitute this prime philosophical question "what is reality?" with "what is this thing we are perceiving?".

If I shout in your ear that you cannot hear (or that your hearing is compromised), the chosen method of communication undermines my position. If I attempt to write and post a letter to you claiming that you cannot read and that your post never gets delivered, then the act itself presupposes the falsehood of my position. It is a formal fallacy called the stolen concept fallacy.

If you cannot understand this basic inconsistency in your position, then maybe you should try to do something easier, like building a sand castle.

OK, it's now clear that you fail to grasp the meaning of the word "Reality" as applied by scientists and philosophers. If a philosopher ask "What is Reality?" the philosopher means "What is the true nature of the Universe?". "How does it exist?"(objectively or subjectively, is there a universe separate from our perception)? "Where does it exist"(is it part of a larger subset of other universes or some other medium and what is it)? How much of a role does perception play in what appears as a universe? Is the universe just an idea, a dream? Is it comprehensible and why does it exist? All those questions are gathered under the roof of this most emblematic question in philosophy - "WHAT IS REALITY?". Science cannot answer it, we quite simply don't know for certain. We have a lot of clues but not the final answer. You CANNOT ever know for certain what reality is if you don't have the answers to these questions.

So when i said that human perception is a misleading and wrong description of reality, I, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking("I don't know what reality is") and a multitude of other brilliant physicists meant that the solid, fixed universe that we perceive is contradicted by the empirical evidence we have accumulated from GR(time delation, length contraction) and QM. If you want to argue this point, you have to prepare yourself to battle the greatest minds in physics(PhD's, noble prize winners, etc, etc) and tons of experimental evidence. Quite frankly, and I mean no insult, I am absolutely certain that you'll 100.00 % fail(that's exactly one hundred point zero zero).

 

[WaveJumper]

Truth is an assessment, I don't think you can so easily divorce 'truth' from point of view.

The Truth(capital "T") is definitely not an assessment. Unless you mean the assessment of the forces that created the universe(natural or otherwise). If there is a reason why the universe exists and we find it, this ultimate Truth cannot be a human assessment.

That is simply not true. Just because a theory fits the facts doesn't mean it is correct, let alone, better than a previous theory.

I said "experimentally verified theory is a better description of reality". If you want to degrade science, I am afraid you will at some point meet some very harsh words from the administration here.

Actually one of the things that Newton used to emphasize, was that he was simply describing reality, not explaining it. This is one of the problems with QM, the math works, the experiments work, but the explanations are nonsensical.

Reality doesn't care if JoeDawg or some other user approves it. It's non-sensical to expect reality to match your pre-conceived common-sense notions. Your human intuition is worthless outside of your family, friends, dinner, parties, frying fish, etc. daily activities.

...these are evidence that scientists are reaching much deeper than the surface.

Or that they are out of their depth.

Is this an attempt to get the thread locked? Do you know the names of the physicists behind the mentioned theories? I am afraid you are too small to even begin to think about criticising their work.

 

[JoeDawg]

The Truth(capital "T") is definitely not an assessment. Unless you mean the assessment of the forces that created the universe(natural or otherwise). If there is a reason why the universe exists and we find it, this ultimate Truth cannot be a human assessment.

And how does one describe 'ultimate truth'?
Because you've just moved from the empirically describable, into the realm of metaphysics, religion and idealism.

I said "experimentally verified theory is a better description of reality". If you want to degrade science, I am afraid you will at some point meet some very harsh words from the administration here.

LOL. Degrade science? Did I not show the proper reverence? Should I repent?

And actually, I quoted you, have another look, you said this:

Every new experimentally verified theory is a better description of what 'exists'.

Reality doesn't care if JoeDawg or some other user approves it. It's non-sensical to expect reality to match your pre-conceived common-sense notions. Your human intuition is worthless outside of your family, friends, dinner, parties, frying fish, etc. daily activities.

Every theory involves intuition. That's where new hypotheses come from. We have a pattern seeking brain.

Is this an attempt to get the thread locked? Do you know the names of the physicists behind the mentioned theories? I am afraid you are too small to even begin to think about criticising their work.

Did you really just threaten to tell the teacher on me??
I stand by my comments. Degrade science? Pfffft. Whatever.

 

[JoeDawg]

"The next question was - what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward."

- Richard Feynman