Can we say that every different perspective and measuring tool

No retard. Facts are objective, and perception is relative.

>>2109780
>facts are objective
What? How do you define objectivity? As something most people agree upon? As something that solves a problem? As a measurment of a mechanical tool?

>>2109824
Humans have focused on certain ways of thinking for a long time.
The idea of finding a single truth, a soure of all other knowledge. Whether it be mathematics or god or philosophy. These branches of knowledge were elaborated upon and expanded in an attempt t use them to explain everything else yet who is to say that is possible at all. Perhaps the right way would be to allow an infinite amount of possible pictures of reality, all serving their own functions or beauty.
Why does a mahcine know better than the human eye? They simply know different things and examine reality in different ways and from different perspectives.

>>2109824
not him but objectivity is the idea that there is a state of reality that exists independent of our perception of it (whether we recognize it or not)

the earth is objectively a sphere no matter what a particular person believes it to be or not (because science)

>>2109884
An "objective reality" according to such a definition is something out of the bible. Akeen to a paradise of eden. An incomprehensible thingm like a myth.
ITs not odd that science is rooted in such a notion since modern science was born out of christian and bible inspired philosophy.

Occam's razor. You can only work with the evidence you are given.

For example if you have only ever seen white swans you know you have only seen white swans and you can induct that all swans are white. The fact and the induction are 2 different things. Now let's say you sail to the other side of the world and discove a black swan. The induction was wrong, however the fact was not. At that point in the past all you had ever seen were white swans.

This in turn leads to standards of evidence which is another subject. A doctor is limited in their ability to examine their patient and may not be certain about a diagnosis yet have to make a call anyway while an engineer has to and can test the shit out of an aircraft.

>>2110274
My point is that you might very well be able to explain things from a geocentric perspective(or any other fallen out of favor theory) in an interesting and possibly benefitial way.
Moving to your example you can perhaps say after only seeing white swans that the black creatures you saw were not swans anymore because swans are white.
The idea is accepting multiple or possibly infinite points of view while knowing many of them will not be compatible with each other.

>>2110274
>>2110364
And you are right that an engineer can examine things but of course we are living in a world which has been running on the idea that there is one truth and one theoretical source of truth into whihc everything must eventually merge.
This is how science has worked, based on this we have been forming our problems and solutions and structuring the modern world.

File: wtfitsflat.png (47KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x498px

>>2110364
But a point of view includes both facts and inductions.

The explorer noticed the black creature was the shape of the swan, laid eggs and swam in water, it was like the white swan in every way except the color of its feathers. He plucked it and presented it to the cook who assumed it was a white swan. The cook served the swan to an ornithologist who determined it was not the same species as the white swan due to minor differences in its bones but knew nothing about the black feathers.

In each case it is the same swan and they induce or deduce different things about it. The ornithologist could sit them down and teach them what he knows and bring them to his point of view. Reality didn't change, only their knowledge.

>>2110373
cont im of course saying that maybe now is the right time to start thinking about many different parallel incomensurable ontologies.

>>2110373
What is wrong with this? We might not like having only 1 way of looking at things, but when it comes to curing disease and flying planes the priority is having something that works.

Nobody wants to hear about your le unique postmodern twist on the flat earth faggot.

>>2110420
>parallel incomensurable ontologies
what's this

>>2110413
I think i made a mistake.
In the swan example it would be like saying that both only white and only blakc swans exist but also both.
The earth is both round and flat and the solar system is both heliocentric and geocentric all depands on where you are looking from and what you are looking with.
changing our location in space and changing the tools we use to examine and interact with the world change our perception of the world and thus the world itself.
After all what is a non observed world? Its always what we put there and what we project on it.

Why is it more true to make assumptions an dconclusions about a planet when you are closer to it or using a magnifying tool then looking at it with your eyes? They are not more correct thye are simply different.
Perhaps our task now is salvage older ideas and see how they can serve us instead of rejecting them for the sole purpose of trying to merge everything under one idea.

>>2110427
"something that works" is something that carries a lot of baggage with it.
We define what works and we define the standards by which we judge what works.
Its very possible that by accepting a more plural way of looking at reality our "what works" standard will change into something even more desirable.

>>2110429
Ways of making sense of the world that cant work together, that cannot be unified fully or even partially.