Re: [asa] Objective vs. Subjective (and the Green Rules)

  
The beer can event was public when it happened, but it's now in the past; and because no one recorded it, it's become inaccessible to everyone. It exists only in your and your neighbor's (private) memory. However, your memory is a valid source for the truth in this case: you yourself in a sense could bring the event back into the public domain by simply declaring the truth openly. (And so could your neighbor.) You don't need further resources, because you're an eyewitness. And if you make the truth public, it's public whether anyone believes you or not.

If you make the event public in this way, however, it's obviously not the event itself that would become public but a description of the event.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nucacids<mailto:nucacids@wowway.com>
  To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Objective vs. Subjective (and the Green Rules)

  Hi Don,

  Thank you for taking the time to clarify. Let me see if I am following this correctly.

  You wrote, "Your knowledge of the event is private, but the event itself was public. Whether an event is public or not (by my definition) does not depend on who knows or doesn't know of it.

  As I stated earlier, "Information that's public is info that people can obtain in principle if they have the resources and the motivation." If someone had the resources and the motivation they could have secretly monitored your neighbor's behavior in as much detail as necessary."

  The *event* was public, but *knowledge* remains private. Even though *two* of us would know the truth, as long as he lies, it remains private knowledge among two people.

  To make it public, we need the resources and the motivation to carry out such a transformation. If no one cares to probe, the knowledge remains both private, yet true. Even if they cared, since by the time they hear the private knowledge become a public claim, it is a claim about history. And since we don't have the ability to take our cameras back in time, it remains private.

  Am I making sense?

  Mike

    Mike: "But this does not mean the analysis can uncover the truth of the statement."

    That's right; any statement in fact could be a lie. But whether it is true or not, those who hear it can, for example, compare it with other statements from the same source and make judgment calls.

    Mike: "A statement may have its origin in someone's private world as a consequence of experience with the outside world."

    That would be true of the vast majority of all statements.

    Mike: "If no one saw him but me, and he denies that he did it (while knowing that he did), is my knowledge of this event private or public?"

    Your knowledge of the event is private, but the event itself was public. Whether an event is public or not (by my definition) does not depend on who knows or doesn't know of it.

    As I stated earlier, "Information that's public is info that people can obtain in principle if they have the resources and the motivation." If someone had the resources and the motivation they could have secretly monitored your neighbor's behavior in as much detail as necessary. And if adequate surveillance equipment didn't exist, then they could have done it "in principle." In other words, the public world contains everything we can know about that's not in private worlds.

    What people cannot do even in principle is directly access how you feel about your neighbor. That info is in your private world.

    (Investigators are using MRI to pry open a few fringes around some private worlds, but they need a certain amount of cooperation from their subjects.)

    Don

      Hi Don,

      "A statement becomes an object the instant it is made. That's why all statements are objective: they can be analyzed for information concerning the persons making them."

      But this does not mean the analysis can uncover the truth of the statement. All kinds of things happen to us that we could not prove or provide evidence of. Often times, we have only our word.

      "Every statement also has its origin in someone's private world, so that's why they're subjective. (I said earlier I'd prefer to divide reality into private vs. public instead of subjective and objective, because it's possible to define private and public precisely.)"

      I'm not so sure. A statement may have its origin in someone's private world as a consequence of experience with the outside world. Let's say I am outside mowing the lawn and my neighbor decides to throw a beer can onto my lawn. If no one saw him but me, and he denies that he did it (while knowing that he did), is my knowledge of this event private or public?

      - Mike

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 15 02:24:58 2009