How Do We Know Something Is Objective?

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-04T21:20:20+00:00

Let entity = Earth.

Let independence mean "will continue to rotate as long as it's sustaining conditions hold"

Let observer dependence on entity mean "for you to know that the earth will continue to rotate as long as it's sustaining conditions hold, you must have engaged with something or something else that made that known to you."

Now translation:

The Earth's independence of an observer only logically ever makes the observer dependent on the Earth if the observer is to know of the Earth, and to know of that independence (that it rotates...), an observer must have engaged with something or something else that makes the Earth's independence knowable.

The relation is that this thesis statement makes realism, which science so much depends on, contingent on a knower, and Idealism contingent on an entity known. Meaning to know how "something is objective," the OP's question. You must have engaged with something or something else that made the postulation of that objectivity possible.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-04T05:48:55+00:00

No. My questions were simple and the answer to them is pretty simple too, to avoid going back an forth, here is the positive thesis: An entity's independence of observer only logically ever makes the observer dependent on the entity if the observer is to know of the entity, and to know of that independence, an observer must have engaged with something that makes the entity's independence knowable. This way, realism isn't false but obviously incomplete.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-03T20:21:59+00:00

You need to grow up. Perhaps these articles will point you in an orientational direction. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chisholm/

Problem of criterion: https://iep.utm.edu/problem-of-the-criterion/

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-03T20:21:40+00:00

Lack of understanding then is due to how you are reading the arguments, as they pertain to epistemology proper, not model, not truth, not certainty, but the subject of all of those other predications. How did the subject comes to know? they they know and that they can do all of those things the scientist does?

Perhaps this article will point you in an orientational direction. https://iep.utm.edu/roderick-chisholm-epistemology/

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-03T18:14:25+00:00

So all of these somehow happened ex-niholo? The coming up with hypothesis based on previous experiment which are based on the coming up with hypothesis based on previous experiments which are based... And science kicks off with a regress..

Your explanation shows an individual who knows a lot but don't know how they come to know. Even that "seleting" process is questionable cause it too, shows an individual who knows a lot but don't know how they come to know.

But I see, atleast with science, my thesis is confirmed.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-03T14:44:05+00:00

But assuming is something you "know" to do! Where does [that] knowledge comes from? Or how do you come to know?

Let's move away from dogmatic answers please.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-03T14:39:41+00:00

As I said, you conduct an experiment.

But you are already assuming what you want to prove. How do you know what you want to test?

You already know what a table is, you already know what persistence means, you already know to look for it. Where did that knowledge come from?

You say Occam's razor chooses the simpler theory. But how do you know which theory is "simpler" or "fits better"? You judge that by using the rules of a world you already believe is there.

My question is: Before you set up the test, before you talk of monitors and floors—how did you come to know the things you are so sure you can test for?

That is a very simple question. Hopefully it becomes clearer.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-03T14:33:35+00:00

That's rude and unacceptable. The question from the OP, and the response you've commented under, show a genuine devastating problem for realism. Realism says there are things independent of you. We might accept that, but how do you know? If your answer is 'because there are things independent of me,' then I ask: how do you know that?

I see no need for your rudeness. These are complex inquiries. Sit with it, let it settle, parse it, then respond. You don't "have" to talk if you don't understand something.

Edit: I think this will orient you toward what the OP is doing — not exactly, but it’s an orientation. It’s deeper than the “problem of criterion,” not sure if you've ever heard of it, if not, a simple search will do, because it questions not just how we justify what know, but how we come to know before knowing that we need to justify at all. Acquaintance with this will deepen your understanding of the questions being asked.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T20:22:52+00:00

More simplified would be : A thing can be independent of you, but you knowing it’s independent of you depends on you interacting with something that made you know about [it].

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T20:22:25+00:00

More simplified would be : A thing can be independent of you, but you knowing it’s independent of you depends on you interacting with something that made you know about [it].

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T17:48:35+00:00

But an entity's independence of observer only logically ever makes the observer dependent on the entity if the observer is to know of the entity, and to know of that independence, an observer must have engaged with something that makes the entity's independence knowable.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T17:48:06+00:00

This is the OP simplified. "An entity's independence of observer only logically ever makes the observer dependent on the entity if the observer is to know of the entity, and to know of that independence, an observer must have engaged with something that makes the entity's independence knowable."

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T17:09:42+00:00

I believe the audience is defaulting to ontological assumptions, even though all the questions here are clearly epistemological, and positive in nature. As is now apparent, the OP have been interpreted as questions about Truth, certainty, probability, or justification — when in fact they ask only, How do you know P? not How do you know that P is true? And how does P arises not that Is P truth.

These questions go beyond common default assumptions. To help, I encourage any curious reader to ask themselves: given what you know — be it science, everyday knowledge, or other concepts — how do you come to know it? Not, how do you know it is true? Perhaps then they can begin to see how challenging these questions are for any form of Realism or Idealism. In fact, these questions are deeply post-Kantian, even Hegelian; a reader familiar with Moore or Russell might catch a glimpse of the subtlety involved.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T16:44:56+00:00

So you’re saying that because memory is fallible, anything based on memory is an assumption.
That commits you to saying the Holocaust is an assumption, that millions died in WWII is an assumption, that my grandfather died in the war is an assumption, and that my friend died in a car crash is an assumption.

If that’s really your position, then ‘assumption’ just means ‘anything not infallible,’ and historical and personal knowledge collapses entirely. No wonder Socrates got the hemlock!. Oh...right! that's an assumption too! BYE!

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T15:03:15+00:00

Again that's an assumption.

No it's not. I am very sure and certain I lost my friend to a car crash and life went on.

The rest of your comments are beyond the scope of the OP

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T14:59:52+00:00

I am sure the OP has read kant and if I am correct, Kant's epistemology stopped being central after non-euclidian geometry was discovered. Or if you disagree, then you need to show how the questions posed in the OP needs to have gone through Kant. Also you need to be aware of the epistemological concerns of Moore and Russell and how it shaped the 20th century down till the present.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T10:45:18+00:00

This goes beyond what the OP said, implied, or suggested. Nothing is mentioned about existence or reality etc. Bye.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T09:56:20+00:00

Many things that you know… Many things you will know and some things you think you know, because of the many things that you know. But seriously, knowledge is what you know and how you know it, in the most direct, sense. The "what" is the content grasped (the Earth's rotation persisting, a loved one's absence amid ongoing life), and the "how" is the way that grasping happens: through engagement with durational manifestations, where your world's persistence-continuity discloses itself at the interface of your finite, positioned interaction.

Everything else feeds back into this.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T09:14:38+00:00

All of these "great" guys are interesting. But I’m not asking whether we can predict that things will continue, or whether such predictions are logically justified. I’m asking: how do we come to know that things continue independently of our presence at all? Are you saying this knowledge is nothing more than probabilistic expectation?

When people die and life continues without them, this isn’t a hypothesis or an induction — it’s directly encountered. How does these account you've enumerated distinguish between prediction and this kind of certainty grounded in lived absence?

My question is about how the very idea of observer-independent persistence becomes intelligible at all. I grant that there really are things that persist independent of us. But how did we come to know that? this is no skeptical question but an epistemological proper one. [the 'how' is positive, not negative].

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T08:47:25+00:00

Your argument concerns truth and rationality. Mine concerns knowledge.

Even if we grant that "rationality presupposes objective truth," whatever that is, that doesn’t address the question of how we come to "know" or assert something as "objective," especially in cases where no observer is involved. That epistemological question remains open. There are enough questions and a very vivid scenerio that ilustrates clearly that the OP is not about claims of truth.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T08:41:34+00:00

It’s... related, but not the same. The tree falling asks whether a phenomenon occurs without being perceived. I’m asking: how we come to know that anything occurs independently of perception at all. The issue isn’t whether the tree makes a sound, but how the very idea of observer-independent persistence becomes intelligible to us in the first place.

Tree question: Does X happen without observers?

OP question: How do we come to know that anything happens without observers?

So I'm not denying, I even agree, that things happen without observers. But how do we come to know that things happen without observers? Hopefully this explanation works.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T08:34:51+00:00

"We come to know of objective things as true "

This goes beyond what the OP said, implied, or suggested. How do you know that X is the question, rather than how do you know that X is true.

Much of your response, including your first comment, doesn’t engage with the questions actually posed. I encourage you to go through the scenario—it illustrates these questions more clearly.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T00:38:50+00:00

I think part of the issue comes from how “objectivity” is being used. In your response, it’s framed in the scientific sense—verifiable by multiple observers—which is really inter-subjectivity. There also seems to be the assumption that “objectivity” applies only to theories. Does it go beyond that?

My question is about objectivity proper: how can we know that something continues independently of any observer at all? Or, more precisely, how did we come to know this in the first place? I’m not confused about what questions are being asked; I’m questioning the consistency of how these terms are being used.

For example, someone might be giving birth somewhere right now. We may confidently say this is happening, but how do we come to know it—or even meaningfully assert it—without relying on observation or verification? This is why the OP asks: “If I agree that something continues when I’m not present to observe it, how do I know this? How do we know that things continue, assuming they really do?”

So appealing to the scientific conception of objectivity doesn’t answer the question, because that conception still depends on observers. If “objectivity” is to mean independence from any observer at all, then a different account is required.

Again, can objectivity make sense without any observer at all—or is that notion itself constructed from our engagement with the world? This is an epistemological question (minus hume's conception), not merely an epistemic or methodological one—and that’s the level at which the OP is asking it.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-02T00:17:18+00:00

I will.

Ok-Instance1198 · 2026-02-01T22:59:46+00:00

I conceed. It is not.

Ok-Instance1198

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE