Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Rob,
If something is purely subjective, it is not a truth that
anybody but the person who experiences it can know. But an
enormous amount of what we know is testable by objective means.
RF> If truth itself is subjective it does not matter what we
> evaluate it against, the contradiction will follow us.
Nobody outside an asylum for the seriously psychotic doubts
that they and other people exist. The existence of other people
impinges upon our experience constantly, and there are objective
tests for determining whether some existing individual is in our
presence.
Other truths, such as heavy objects fall to the ground when dropped,
are objective facts that are never doubted by any people (or any of
the higher mammals). There is nothing subjective about such facts.
RF> I guess more precision will help establish subjective truths.
> It is just we will have to concede there are conditions on those
> truths: Descartes "exists" in this sense or that sense only.
> They won't be universally true.
The question of the reliability of historical facts has been
analyzed in great detail for centuries. For Descartes's existence,
the evidence from a great multiplicity of reliable sources is
beyond a reasonable doubt. For some of the statements in Herodotus,
the corroborative evidence is very strong; for others, however,
it's weak; and for many statements, we have nothing but his word.
Historians have analyzed such issues in great detail and have
established good criteria and methodologies for judging the
reliability of the claims. An enormous body of historical facts
have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Another large
body of claims have been shown to be false beyond a reasonable
doubt. Between those extremes, there is much more data of varying
degrees of reliability, some of which will eventually be shown
to fall into the true or false camp. But much of it will never
be verified or falsified beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's fair to question a great deal of received "truth". But
to dismiss all of it as subjective is a sign of insincerity,
psychosis, or a "troll" (as they call people who stir up
pointless debates on email lists).
John