Comments on: Objection!

Objection!

juv3nal — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:05:30 -0800

Phoenix Wright argues about relativism in animated gift form ...and the thrilling conclusion.

By: East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:10:23 -0800

Thank you for this kind animated gift

By: East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:11:37 -0800

From the same site, Hilarity Comics are hilarious comics

By: Xurando

Xurando — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:18:59 -0800

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

By: gorgor_balabala

gorgor_balabala — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:36:51 -0800

Thank you, smellings.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:51:41 -0800

The flaw here is that the same logic would apply to those things that virtually everyone agrees are relative. If one post graduate woman in Arkansas thinks Hillary Clinton is the person most qualified to be president, does that nullify the opinions of those who think that everybody has their own truth on the subject, and those truths are equally valid?

By: voltairemodern

voltairemodern — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:54:52 -0800

The flaw here is that the same logic would apply to those things that virtually everyone agrees are relative. Terrible example. Use ice cream flavors instead, next time.

By: voltairemodern

voltairemodern — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:59:44 -0800

To add to my comment, I mean that the sort of thing you're talking about occurs with matters like which flavor of ice cream is the best. Yes, that's clearly relative. However, matters such as who will be the best president are anything but relative (in the sense used by "Phoenix Wright"). We don't think that everybody "has their own truth," there, just that they have their own opinion. Opinion comes with the unspoken stipulation, "...until further notice," whereas truth does not.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:59:52 -0800

Terrible example. Use ice cream flavors instead, next time. Pardon? I think everyone agrees that banana ice cream is objectively bad.

By: fillsthepews

fillsthepews — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:07:14 -0800

That's a fun and silly game. Love it.

By: regicide is good for you

regicide is good for you — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:08:08 -0800

If one post graduate woman in Arkansas thinks Hillary Clinton is the person most qualified to be president, does that nullify the opinions of those who think that everybody has their own truth on the subject, and those truths are equally valid? Epistemological validity and correctness aren't the same thing. Though it seems to me (IANAPM*) that, despite Blue Hair's objections, what's being discussed in the link actually is solipsism, since no one discusses the things that knowledge can be relative to, like culture, language, biology, etc. Without that context, it's not a terribly useful idea beyond undergrad stoner arguments and amusing gifts. *I Am Not A Philosophy Major

By: regicide is good for you

regicide is good for you — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:11:18 -0800

Opinion comes with the unspoken stipulation, "...until further notice," whereas truth does not. It used to be the truth that the world was flat.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:14:05 -0800

Butz!

By: sonic meat machine

sonic meat machine — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:19:37 -0800

No, actually, "the world is flat" was refuted via test a long time ago. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical. The "earth is flat" belief was around, of course, but it wasn't until the wonderful and culturally positive Christian Church decided that it contradicted their Written Traditions that it became the "Truth."

By: supercres

supercres — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:26:32 -0800

Post subtitle: When seventh graders, epistemology, and manga-style GIF animation meet. Or perhaps, Relativism: Rad or Retarded?

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:42:01 -0800

Clinton vs. Obama: Broccoli vs. Ice Cream?

By: recursion

recursion — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:53:16 -0800

Pardon? I think everyone agrees that banana ice cream is objectively bad. Now take that back. I've had some bananas foster ice cream (some store brand from Savemart) and it was damned good. Not as good as real bananas foster, mind you, but still pretty damned good. Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry also deserves a mention if we are talking about banana ice cream

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:02:46 -0800

Now take that back. I've had some bananas foster ice cream (some store brand from Savemart) and it was damned good. Obvious troll.

By: painquale

painquale — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:25:20 -0800

Aw, that could have been fun if the arguments weren't so terrible.

By: oddman

oddman — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:41:08 -0800

"It used to be the truth that the world was flat." This sentence makes no sense for any accurate understanding of truth and falsity.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:55:52 -0800

So the gist of this animated gif is that because one person thinks relativism is retarded, relativists must therefore agree with that version of the truth and accept that it is retarded, right? Isn't this argument incorrectly assuming that relativism means that everyone's personal truth is equally valid? I thought the whole point of relativism is that it argues that there is no objective validity measure for truth.

By: zamboni

zamboni — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:15:06 -0800

Feel free to play along at home.

By: CitizenD

CitizenD — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:17:41 -0800

the prosecution is, indeed, always ready. that's about all i got.

By: BigSky

BigSky — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:34:03 -0800

The flaw here is that the same logic would apply to those things that virtually everyone agrees are relative. If one post graduate woman in Arkansas thinks Hillary Clinton is the person most qualified to be president, does that nullify the opinions of those who think that everybody has their own truth on the subject, and those truths are equally valid? The logic only holds in this argument because relativism is self-referential. Relativism makes a claim about all knowledge. The post graduate woman in Arkansas is making a claim that those holding other views on who is qualified to be president are mistaken. If those who thought that everyone's truth was valid really took her position seriously they would have to face a contradiction. Typically they privilege their own view of relativism and replay to the post graduate from Arkansas with, "No, lady, that's what you think." The relativist position doesn't get the "That's what I think." treatment. If it did, it couldn't argue a claim about the world.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:36:34 -0800

Relativism makes a claim about all knowledge. Does anyone actually adopt this view, though?

By: Pater Aletheias

Pater Aletheias — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:14:26 -0800

It used to be the truth that the world was flat. No, people used to falsely believe that the world was flat. The truth was the the world was a sphere, whether people knew it or not. The spheroid nature of Earth is an objective truth that does not depend on someone's believing it to still be true.

By: BigSky

BigSky — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:21:51 -0800

Does anyone actually adopt this view, though? As far as I can tell, not too many. Pretty popular topic of conversation though.

By: Caduceus

Caduceus — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:22:41 -0800

No, people used to falsely believe that the world was flat. The truth was the the world was a sphere, whether people knew it or not. The spheroid nature of Earth is an objective truth that does not depend on someone's believing it to still be true. Not according to relativists.

By: Pater Aletheias

Pater Aletheias — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:27:49 -0800

The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical. The "earth is flat" belief was around, of course, but it wasn't until the wonderful and culturally positive Christian Church decided that it contradicted their Written Traditions that it became the "Truth." I'm intrigued. Who in the Christian Church decided this, and when? Because a lot of the heavy-hitters in church history--like Augustine, Bede and Aquinas--clearly taught that the earth is round. While there are no doubt some exceptions, I'd like to see your references for some kind of systemic campaign by the church to enforce flat-earthism on people. It seems to me that the majority of the influential Christian thinkers and writers taught about the round Earth when the topic came up.

By: rodii

rodii — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:24:09 -0800

Washington Irving is probably the main culprit.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:34:07 -0800

The problems arise here because the arguments used in the "court", and even in this thread, confuse "valid" and "true". The prosecution makes this mistake and it harms itself. Relativism (or, more properly, constructivism) makes no claims about what is true. The argument is that no knowledge can be objectively known to be true. As the "witness" stated, the only knowledge we have is represented in our thought and taken in through our perceptions. We have no way to know if this matches what is "really" true, because to know if it was an accurate representation of what is "really true" we'd need to know what was "really true" to begin with. All knowledge, ultimately, will boil down to our perceptions and thoughts, which we can't objectively verify as accurate or not. Thus, all knowledge from everyone is valid, in that all knowledge is equally unverifiable as "really true" or not, but not all knowledge is true, since we can't know what is "true". As the "attorneys" said, this is not solipsism. Constructivism makes no claim about objective reality, or whether there even is one. There might be one, or there might not. It might be exactly like we think it is, or it might not. We just can never know objectively because all knowledge is just a representation of that "true reality", or generated by our own self. This helps clarify some of the "it contradicts itself" arguments.

By: voltairemodern

voltairemodern — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:11:06 -0800

Constructivism is not the same as relativism, and certainly not the same as the absolute form of relativism outlined in the clip. Namely, constructivism is rad, relativism is not.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:50:34 -0800

Ah, but which is more rad - constructivism the knowledge theory or constructivism the artistic movement?

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:57:26 -0800

Constructivism is not the same as relativism, and certainly not the same as the absolute form of relativism outlined in the clip. No, it's not, but I was going by the argument given by the witness, which said that knowledge is a construct of the human mind, which certainly is constructivism. And there certainly are absolute forms of constructivism, such as that espoused by Ernst von Glasersfeld.

By: vorpal bunny

vorpal bunny — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:15:00 -0800

...since we can't know what is "true". Then would you say that it is true that we cannot know what is true?

By: subgear

subgear — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:44:26 -0800

EEGRA!

By: vorpal bunny

vorpal bunny — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:50:08 -0800

Suppose your answer to my previous question was: "I do not know if it is true that we can't know what is true." My next question would be "Is it true that you do not know that?" And we would go on like this for hours until a certain Monsieur Descartes would burst into the room and insist to you that you must know that you exist.

By: Talez

Talez — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:16:37 -0800

I don't think with my head; I know with my heart.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:35:10 -0800

vorpal bunny A constructivist would say that their position is just a view, a more or less coherent way to look at the world that has worked out so far. You're making the mistake of thinking they are saying that no true statement can ever be made, while they say only that they don't know the actual nature of objective reality, if it is there. Your second question, "Is it true that you do not know that?" could be answered, "Yes, it is true that I don't know that," because you are not asking about the nature of reality but about the information possessed by the other party, which they can know, at least consciously. I can know that I consciously don't know something, though perhaps I do know and forgot, I have suppressed it, etc. But I can say that as far as I can tell I don't know the answer.

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:34:54 -0800

(This is like being in a Vulcan nursery with dozens of baby Spocks.)

By: vorpal bunny

vorpal bunny — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:21:02 -0800

So the constructivist position is that they don't know everything? That is a much less controversial and much less interesting position than I gave them credit for.

By: MythMaker

MythMaker — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:41:02 -0800

That's incredible. I love the idea of a .gif based animated series about philosophical argumentation. This demonstrates that there are clearly just not enough debate-based children's animated programs on television these days. A pity.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:41:38 -0800

Clearly, the difference between contructivism and solipsism exists entirely in Sangermaine's head.