Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen
yeah man, no kidding. out of curiosity, does my estimation of logic, science, and their purpose seem fair to you? shared experiences being experiences which are not determined by opinion such as the act of listening to a band vs. having an enjoyable experience listening to that band.
|
The only way I would nudge your estimation would be to make this point you made more clear:
Quote:
|
no one can be skeptical of logic, objectivity, or science because they are the framework upon which all possible shared experiences are hung.
|
I would say you can't be skeptical of these things because you have to accept these things (ie.
prove that it's
true that skepticism is a valid theory) in order to argue against it.
So, essentially, yes, not only is it the basis for for the objectivists' (the person that believes in objectivity, not an Ayn Rand follower) framework for reality, it is also the basis of the skeptics framework for reality by which he can argue for his skepticism.
But I think you are dead on in your assertion that objectivity and subjectivity are the differences between verifiable facts and opinions, respectively. If you can't say whether something is true or not, then it's just your opinion, because you need a methodology by which to say whether or not something is true.
Discovering truth without a methodology--which is opinion based--can be contradictory; if my opinion about the nature of reality differs from yours, to say that both of our opinions about the nature of reality are true would completely deflate the use and meaning of the word "truth."
I don't want to lecture; I think it's completely one-sided. I'd like to know if you have any suggestions for making this discussion more rewarding to you.