> Logic itself is subjective. We have a set of heuristics we use to decide if something is "true" in a mathematical and scientific sense. But fundamentally they rely on concepts like "truth" and "logic" which we experience subjectively.

I agree that it is this way, but does it have to be? Is it physically necessary to perceive defection from this dilemma as "pedantic" (see below, how surprising!), or might it only be culturally necessary?

Take your claim for example: you are not distinguishing between logic itself and our experience of logic. You are objectively correct that there is in fact no distinction on one level (experience), but that is not the only level that exists.

How are questions of this nature (essentially: existence) answered in the physical realm, where we have high levels of skill and experience?

> Logic itself is subjective

Not really, by your logic (heh) everything is subjective: including your own argument about logic being subjective (which in turn uses logic).

This problem is why I strongly dislike social relativism arguments. It's sloppy reasoning and I can't make heads or tails of what they're asserting. I also disagree with the interviewee for this reason, I think his argument is also sloppy, he is conflating two different issues.

(One would think I'm some kind of conservative; I'm a gay, Asian American leftist who happens to have a STEM background, and so I hate reading about "socially constructed" arguments--which is what this article is a variation of.)

OK, so you dislike relativistic arguments.

Relative to which objective standard for reasoning are you asserting that any given argument is "sloppy"?

It's a turning point in one's life when we come to acknowle that we don't have to like the fact that relativism is true.

For literal centuries we have known absolute epistemological relativism is childishly easy to self refute.

Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke).

In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”?

This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent?

I find it mildly ironic that I have to explain evaluation (and it’s dependency on a meta theory) on a forum full of computer scientists…

Let’s think in nano baby steps:

A. In what system are you presenting your argument here in your comment? Is that system objective or subjective.

B. If subjective, then I declare your argument to be false for me. End of story.

C. If objective, then congrats, you refuted yourself.

I find it wildly ironic that you condescend and resort to veiled ad hominem on top of a Logic/Philo 101 fallacy known for literal centuries.

Also, the statement “there is an objective system X” doesn’t imply “we fully know the system X”

I represent scientists and logicians and philosophers that have known this for, once again, centuries. People call X background or classical logic.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/

A. I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence.

B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D

C. Is it this one then? How would you prove this?

D. It is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that I subscribe to classical logic; or even a consistent logic for that matter. Or that I subscribe to the same logic at different times of day.

E. I am not impressed neither by your religion; nor by the writings of your prophets. Nullius in verba

> I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence.

That is what counts as an argument! An argument is a technical term from logic and includes inferences and observations (observations are single step inferences). My bad on using logic jargon, but yes, inferences/arguments/proofs all apply here. So what system are you presenting this inference in? Is that objective or subjective?

> B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D.

No, the real beauty of subjectivity is that it allows me to disagree at any level. And I disagree with you on your point above, invoking the full power of subjectivity.

In fact, let me do 100% subjectivity on the whole set of comments here, and declare all your statements false for me.

(Also, the above is proof by cases. And step B/C's conclusions alone don't go out to the outer level alone as you seem to assume. You have to combine them both).

Now, I should be getting paid for doing a logic 101 in the comments ;)

You can’t tell if my inferences are objective or subjective? Why does the distinction even matter then?

The more of my comments you declare false - the more evidence you are providing in support of relativism. It is a peculiar way to agree to my point (via disagreement).

Is that what you call “logic”?

It looked like you were making up the interpretation as you go along…

Sounds like you are on the path towards understanding that what we call “objectivity” is an inter-subjective construct.

I know you are being sarcastic, but this isn't a strange concept and this something philosophers have known for generations.

Let us say you claim "Nothing is objective". Then it doesn't take a genius to assert that your claim "Nothing is objective" isn't objective.

I have no idea what your metric for "strangeness" is.

Using similar reasoning we can also assert that "The speed of light is objective" is not an objective claim.

And we can further assert that both the inner and outer statements are true without arriving at a contradiction.

It doesn't take a genius, merely a very thick skin and a grasp of contextuality, to hold this perfectly reasonable conclusion in a society dominated by naive understanding of non-contradiction.

Objectivity, being an unattainable philosophical ideal, it doesn't prevent us from using the term in more pragmatic/cultural/inter-subjective sense. A white lie - if you will - that only a determined pedant would scrutinize to such philosophical extent.

Just as well, such overt pedantry deserves mockery and contempt.

Logic is subjective because it takes a lot of focused effort to align it with reality.

Here we go in circles. Is your statement about logic subjective or objective? Do you use logic to arrive at that conclusion?