alt.education

Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>> >So is my observation of Scripture, which I posted to you,
>>
>> No. All you can observe is what the words of one particular
>> translation are. What they mean, if anything, is a matter of
>> interpretation.
>>
>> >Bob, and you said truth doesn't mean literal (observed) truth.
>>
>> "Literal" and "observed" are entirely orthogonal concepts.
>>
>> >Is TRUTH objective or up to the individual's interpretation?
>>
>> What truth? There are both kinds. But you have no access to anything
>> but your interpretation.
>
>So, a teacher can't punish a kid for their interpretation of a
>question that was wrong?

What a teacher may or may not do is prescribed by law.

>A judge can't punish a criminal if they felt (their interpretation of the law) was that they were correct?

A judge can order punishment. The judge does not actually do any
punishing.

And judges do not go by "whatever they feel". They are bound not only
by their own interpretation of the law, but by the interpretations of
the judges who came before them. The fact that judge rulings are
subject to appeal and review is indeed on way in which our legal
system becomes MORE objective than it might otherwise.

But none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

>You DO know that all criminals justify themselves...right?

No. Not all criminals do so. But even if they did, so what? In his
reality Hitler may have considered himself a saint, but he would
almost certainly have been executed for war crimes if he had survived
the war.

lojbab