The way to approach the topic would be to list the noted uses for each term in the OED, then see which can be contrasted.

Because we need a set of rules and principles to delineate between what is the realm of bias, opinion, and such to that of the real, the "objective". Hypothesis testing just requires that. — Posty McPostface

And how would we know that we had the right rules?

But that's the wrong question; there is no right, just use. Use changes. A quick look att he OED shows historical uses for objective that would now correspond to ways in which we use subjective. It's a mess.

Which is why i think it better to avoid using the terms, if at all possible.

A default approach should be: anyone who invokes the subjective-objective distinction does not know what they are talking about, unless proven otherwise.

I doubt there is such a thing as objectivity.

I just think some folk are cleverer than others at portraying objectivity.

I have to admit to being drawn more towards the cleverer ones when it comes to reading something. Not so important for day to day interactions because other's particular skills become useful for me for carrying out, on a practical level (maybe saving some money in the process), certain actions.

This should not necessarily suggest I am just a user because people usually love explaining to others what they know about something, so it all works out mutually beneficial.

the fact in reality is separate from the concept fact, and it's separate from talk about those facts. — Sam26

Again, you liking for orange juice is also separate from any concept and talk. Fruit flies like orange juice, though they do not say so.

I might have an idea on what subjectivity and objectivity mean.

I think it all arises from the standards we set in epistemology.

What counts as knowledge?

If I may say so it's a justified true belief. I think the JTB formulation of knowledge has its critics but what can't be faulted is J (justification). Every model for knowledge must include justification.

So, to discuss subjectivity and objectivity, we may focus on the J (justification) part.

J basically means be rational.

Question: What is it to be rational?

Answer:
1. Always look for reasons before believing any statement (that's basically J)
2. Apply correct logic

The above is a very rough sketch of what objectivity means.

Subjectivity is the opposite of that - faulty logic.

While the above seems simple to state it is difficult to practice because our logical capacity is influenced by other parts of our mind. We have emotions, inclinations, aversions, etc. and many of these haven't been analyzed logically either due to laziness or inability.

Whatever it may be, we're impaired by them as far as logical thinking is concerned. This impairment is termed ''subjectivity''.

And how would we know that we had the right rules? — Banno

Certainty is not required, though should be the goal of any dispute or conversation. We can get along without knowing if we're using the words the right or wrong way. That's just how learning occurs. On the other hand, formal languages could not exist without rules. On the most general level, even the process of inference is rule bound.

Which is why i think it better to avoid using the terms, if at all possible. — Banno

Well, there's something to learn from the discussion if you're so inclined. Namely, that some foundations are required to start with and build upon. Yes, meaning is use; but, that use is governed by something else apart from it.

The way to approach the topic would be to list the noted uses for each term in the OED, then see which can be contrasted. — Banno

Isn't the OED a type of rule-book?

I'm not sure about that. Many philosophers think otherwise; but, am not going to delve into that. Namely, in that through the analysis of the subject (self) relative to the object (the world), one can become more objective. Just a thought. — Posty McPostface

Delve into what - The topic of your thread? :brow:

I'm not disagreeing with your latter statement. In fact, I have already said as much. The only way to analyze the self is through and it's relationship with the world is through it's own subjective prism. We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view.

When we are able to explain all subjective experiences, for everyone, not just for yourself, why they are useful and why they are different for each person, we would be at a more objective outlook.

Which does not equate to infallible, of course, but to trained indifference, which is of course just the way of being that Posty started with. It is the business of a doctor to 'be objective', or to take an objective view. — unenlightened

The infallible aspect of any explanation is it's subjective aspect. Objective explanations are infallible. That is their nature. Objective explanations reflect reality. Subjective explanations reflect the subject's values and skewed perspective of reality.

Damn, then there are no real doctors. Perhaps one can ameliorate the force of this a little, and say that an objective view is possible in at least some instances, though one can never be secure that one has taken the objective view in a particular instance. — unenlightened

I did say in the same thread that you are cherry-picking that we can attain a degree of objectivity through the scientific method. What is with the members on this sight that can't read a whole post and respond to the whole post - without cherry-picking? Your post was a waste of time, since I already addressed what it is that you believe you have a problem with.

Delve into what - The topic of your thread? — Harry Hindu

No, the whole German continentalism/romanticism that elevated the welfare of the self above the rest of the world.

We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view. — Harry Hindu

I think you sort of deflated the issue with qualifying "objectivity" here with "degree of objectivity", yet I can't help as though feel that you've fallen into this objective-subjective trap too. Is there no other way to understand the state of being impartial and free from bias, instead of referring to the objective-subjective fallacious distinction?

When we are able to explain all subjective experiences, for everyone, not just for yourself, why they are useful and why they are different for each person, we would be at a more objective outlook. — Harry Hindu

Ideally, yes, assuming perfect knowledge, information, and exchange of thought.

Your post was a waste of time, since I already addressed what it is that you believe you have a problem with. — Harry Hindu

I rather agree, but for different reasons. It's not that I want to refute what you or any of the others are saying, rather I want to draw attention to the fact that people are talking about different things. Everyone is, like you, defending their own usage. What might count as objective knowledge can hardly be expected to fit the same criteria as an objective person, an objective view, an objective explanation and so on, though they may be related.

I think you sort of deflated the issue with qualifying "objectivity" here with "degree of objectivity", yet I can't help as though feel that you've fallen into this objective-subjective trap too. — Posty McPostface

I also said that true objectivity is impossible, which is why it can only come in degrees of limiting subjectivity. The same goes for your "heap". There are degrees of "heaps". It seems to me that you are trapped and are content to stay that way.

Ideally, yes, assuming perfect knowledge, information, and exchange of thought. — Posty McPostface

Isn't that what I already said?

I rather agree, but for different reasons. It's not that I want to refute what you or any of the others are saying, rather I want to draw attention to the fact that people are talking about different things. Everyone is, like you, defending their own usage. What might count as objective knowledge can hardly be expected to fit the same criteria as an objective person, an objective view, an objective explanation and so on, though they may be related. — unenlightened

And that is why clarifying definitions are so important, unenlightened. :smirk:

Objective knowledge, explanations and views are only part of a person. If a person has all of these qualities, then they qualify as a objective person, but I already explained that that is impossible. The differences lie only in your subjective mind. As I said, fallacies are due to subjectivity.

The same goes for your "heap". — Harry Hindu

There are degrees of "heaps". — Harry Hindu

I don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested.

It seems to me that you are trapped and are content to stay that way. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, I'm in the dark here.

Isn't that what I already said? — Harry Hindu

I wasn't sure, so I had to put it in my own words.

I rather agree, but for different reasons. It's not that I want to refute what you or any of the others are saying, rather I want to draw attention to the fact that people are talking about different things. — unenlightened

I feel as though we're all talking about the same thing. Just that we're kind of confused about what it is.

I don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested. — Posty McPostface

Two different heaps have a different amount of grains of sand. They both qualify as heaps, (subjectivity), but one has less subjectivity than the other (the smaller heap). Once you remove all grains of sand (all subjectivity) you have attained true objectivity, not just degrees of it by removing a bit of subjectivity at a time.

I'll think about that, thanks.

I feel as though we're all talking about the same thing. Just that we're kind of confused about what it is. — Posty McPostface

Well they are related, but perhaps in some instances only as closely as a firedog is related to the canine species.

I am inclined to take a grammatical sense as the root of things. Of statements, a statement is subjective if it claims something about the person making it, and objective if it claims something about the rest of the world. 'I like orange juice' is a subjective statement, whereas 'Sam likes orange juice' is an objective one. (Note though that if I were to say 'unenlightened likes orange juice' it would be subjective statement in masquerade.)

From this purely grammatical root, I think it is possible to trace the way the use of the distinction becomes extended to cover all the other ways it has been used in the thread. And also how they can become terms of authority and dismissal.

Whatever it may be, we're impaired by them as far as logical thinking is concerned. This impairment is termed ''subjectivity''. — TheMadFool

Some people, including me, would disagree with calling subjectivity an impairment, even in the context of logical thinking.

We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view. — Harry Hindu

I think this is usually called consensus, not objectivity. :chin: Objectivity, at least in its most absolute sense, is unchallengeably correct. A consensus is an opinion accepted by most/all; it need not be correct.

When we are able to explain all subjective experiences, for everyone, not just for yourself, why they are useful and why they are different for each person, we would be at a more objective outlook. — Harry Hindu

What you seem to be saying here is that when we succeed in converting the subjective into the objective - and good luck with that! :wink: - we will "be at a more objective outlook". Well yes, but why would we even consider such a thing? Subject and object are complements, not enemies. Subjectivity is not less than (or greater than) objectivity; it's a different and complementary perspective.

I think this is usually called consensus, not objectivity. :chin: Objectivity, at least in its most absolute sense, is unchallengeably correct. A consensus is an opinion accepted by most/all; it need not be correct. — Pattern-chaser

I have toyed with the idea that the truth is what you can convince people of. I think that's true in the context of truth leading to action, which is a political, not logical or philosophical, truth. That's where consensus comes in. When it's time to act, we have to do the best we can, which is consensus. Of course, as is shown by the climate change debate, it's easier said than done.

No. It is written as a description of English.

Certainty is not required, — Posty McPostface

The point was that this is not an empirical enquiry in the sense that any rule you set up giving the meaning of "subjective" can immediately be falsified by using the word in a novel way.

The point was that this is not an empirical enquiry in the sense that any rule you set up giving the meaning of "subjective" can immediately be falsified by using the word in a novel way. — Banno

Then what is it if not an empirical inquiry?

philosophy.

The objective subjective trap is something I have noticed occurring for quite some time now. People talk about being objective or subjective; but, what does that even mean? How does one know one is being objective or subjective. Fundamentally, it seems that the claim that one is being either objective or subjective is the Sorites paradox.


Furthermore, when we talk about being objective as opposed to being subjective, we are really talking about criteria for evaluating knowledge. I have raised this thorny issue already in a fairly recent thread, here.

Thoughts or criticisms welcome.

Maybe it's better to think of objectivity as invariance. Invariance can still be relative to some situation and/or some set of transformations. A clear sky is blue during the day - this is an observation that is independent of where you look from the surface of the earth facing the sun, what shape or color you are, what the surrounding circumstance is like. It's objective relative to humans that can perceive blue. But when you expand the group of observers or include observers with traits that don't have the ability to perceive blue then the fact is no longer objective relative to this new group of observers- its now subjective or dependent on a subgroup of observers.

People think of objectivity as if it's synonymous with invariance to all observers and all conditions. I think that leads to confusion and unnecessarily limits the applicability of the term. Not saying absolute invariance is

Some people, including me, would disagree with calling subjectivity an impairment, even in the context of logical thinking. — T Clark

Sorry to hear that.

Subjectivity, by definition, means variation with the observer.

Logic, if you start with premises agreed upon, will always lead to the same conclusion. That's objectivity.

So, if there's any value in being subjective then it has to do with non-logical stuff. The rules of logic don't change and if you start with the same premises you reach the same conclusion.

I'm not devaluing subjectivity though. As far as logic is concerned, starting with different premises and reaching different conclusions can be termed as subjectivity.

Logic, if you start with premises agreed upon, will always lead to the same conclusion. That's objectivity.

So, if there's any value in being subjective then it has to do with non-logical stuff. The rules of logic don't change and if you start with the same premises you reach the same conclusion. — TheMadFool

P1. I like orange juice.
P2. I drink what I like if it is available.
P3. Orange juice is available.
C. I drink orange juice.

Is this not a logical argument? Is it not also a subjective one?

You have a point.

But what I'm saying is the kind of subjectivity you're referring to is pre-logic i.e. they're fed into our logic CPU, if I may use a computer metaphor, and out pops the results, conclusions.

Nothing can be done about them. Likes and dislikes are, if you like, subconscious and only matter as inputs for our internal logic apparatus.

What matters, therefore, is logic itself, which must be weilded with competence so that we may reach the correct conclusions implied by our premises (based on our preferences or otherwise).

Application of logic, consistent rules and premises, are foundational to achieving objectivity.

Like I said, the subjectivity-objectivity distinction is essential to rationality. What is rationality? To be logical and being logical means adhereing to correct ''forms'' of logical inference. Logic never can inform us about the truth of our premises except for the instance when we put forth inconsistent premises.

I'll think about that, thanks. — Posty McPostface

And while you're thinking about that, you can think about it in reverse as well. Think of each grain of sand representing objectivity instead of subjectivity. The more sand, the more objectivity, until you fill the uni/multi-verse with sand, at which point you have achieved true objectivity. This represents how difficult to near-impossible it is to be attain true objectivity.

Heaps come in degrees. Objectivity comes in degrees.