Why are numbers so important, here? Shouldn't we be able to discuss objectivity at the individual level? We can't ignore the inherent delimitation of consciousness and mentalese when discussing these things, can we? Understanding begins once we know how laws of consciousness and the spectrum of subjectivity to "objectivity" works for one person at a time. To begin to speak of two people as though they were one is to skip over most of the discussion. It's a huge jump from the individual to the collective on the topic of objectivity, if we must refer to the collective as necessary to the discussion of objectivity....I'm sure it's better to keep it to what communicates, what is possible and what isn't, objectively, between no more than two people.Therefor, the higher number of consensus among the highest numbers of people who are as objective as they can possibly be with their subjective minds, is what objectivity means to us humans. — Christoffer
You suggest that consensus, where we all agree, but we could all be wrong, is the same as objective, which offers a sort of guarantee that something is correct, and accurately reflects reality? — Pattern-chaser
the concept of objectivity is not defined as 100% pure objectivity as in, there isn't a subject mind around to interpret it, but instead a definition of what we see as proven facts outside of our concept and interpretations of it. — Christoffer
Why are numbers so important, here? Shouldn't we be able to discuss objectivity at the individual level? — Anthony
'm sure it's better to keep it to what communicates, what is possible and what isn't, objectively between two people only. — Anthony
There's many interesting hours can be spent discussing objectivity, but semantic differences aren't part of that. — Pattern-chaser
how it was, and how the current distinction between subject and object is an outgrowth - a cancerous one, I'd say - of a more original distinction which was far more coherent and far more interesting than it's current day incarnation. — StreetlightX
The collective, as I see it, has no existence; the most I could cede is that it is an average of viewpoints — Anthony
many people treat science and peer review like God, all the way up to the point of personification of it: e.g.: "the science says/tells us...." ...which is essentially like "God spoke to me; God told us..." Like the transcendent belief in a God that can be found nowhere, so it is with collective beliefs. The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony
The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony
If you subscribe to the existence of collectives, you can say they exist in different provinces of variable human groups: culture, religion, politics, economics, military, or any authoritative doctrine which asks of complete unquestioning obeisance. — Anthony
Where is the evidence of any collective? Evidence is the ultimate authority of science. — Anthony
That's why I defined the scientific process as the closest we humans have got to being truly objective and that form of objectivity should be considered a true definition of the word. Otherwise we open up to defining anything, any knowledge that we have, as subjective and that's a slippery slope down to denying facts in science. — Christoffer
However, we need to settle at a certain point on the less than 100% objectivity. — Damir Ibrisimovic
...I view objectivity through the lens of humans using that word to describe absolute truth outside of our perception, but reachable by a scientific method, since we've reached truths that can be considered objective truths... — Christoffer
I also note that it is a sort of fudge, a sort of denial of uncertainty. Maybe because it's more comfortable? — Pattern-chaser
But your milder definition encourages this misunderstanding. I think this worries me more than any other part of the ages-old debate over objectivity. — Pattern-chaser
t is impossible to communicate any real amount of meaning anyway... So why is it important that there are 'clear, basic definitions of words'? There simply are none. — Blue Lux
For me you can't be objective only through a collective, since the collective can be just as corrupted as the subjective. Even more so, the collective can be so corrupted that individuals subjectivity gets indoctrinated into the collective delusion. Practical objectivity, the one which we can define has it's roots in logic and scientific methods, are still not through a transpersonal perspective, since you on an individual level use deduction, induction and proper methods of science to reach a conclusion that has stripped away as much as you can on an individual level, of your subjectivity. It's a process and way of thinking that cannot include subjective thinking, but even then it can be influenced by the individual, that's why we have peer reviews and why we combine findings and research with others. Only when this is done can we reach practical objectivity. — Christoffer
If two people gets to know the definition of a word that is wrong and they both gets the task of defining that word, they will not have an objective conclusion just by combining their subjective opinion of the definition of the word. But if they did research on that word, asked what other people define it as and combine their individual research, they would reach the correct definition of that word and make it objective. It's the process that makes something objective, both on an individual scale and on a collective scale, combining the two makes it even stronger. — Christoffer
Subjectivity and objectivity seems closer to be about singular perspective vs combined perspective. The singular cannot show the entire truth, but the objective can and with higher probability of objectiveness, the higher level of probability for it being true outside of our perception and anyone's perception. — Christoffer
Its interesting in an academic way, but if we are talking about objectivity and subjectivity, undermining the entire language by saying that trying to define "objectivity" more clearly in language, is futile, makes it almost impossible to continue searching for a good answer — Christoffer
It is an internal negation of subjectivity for the collective.
These conclusions of science, for instance, that an atom exists or that a color exists or whatever... These conclusions do not make objectivity any different. They are still transpersonal abstractions. — Blue Lux
The fact is that there are no facts, only interpretations. And I agree with Socrates that the only true knowing is knowing that you know nothing. — Blue Lux
It does not matter that science can objectively define Mercury or wax... When I melt the wax and it is still wax... No objective explanation can ever give me that experience and that continuity. — Blue Lux
The objective says nothing about truth. It merely acts as truth. It is a transpersonal truth, which is absolutely meaningless. Would you die for these supposed objective truths? — Blue Lux
Objectivity is an illusion... As is subjectivity. There is no world of truth that we are incapable of ascertaining alone... Furthermore, there is no truth that can only be ascertained by means of an objectivity. There is no subjectivity trying to find the truth OUT THERE SOMEWHERE. The perception of something is not just a mere perception. The experiencing of the world is the world revealing itself in truth. The experiencing of the world is the experiencing of the essence of the world... The essence of the world is no longer to be understood as hidden. — Blue Lux
It's an internal negation of subjectivity for the individual, but an objective fact filtered through human perception demands more observers than one and that all those individual observers try and disregard their own subjectivity. — Christoffer
The physical world is what it is, with or without us, — Christoffer
Those conclusions can never be subjective, therefore objectivity is something outside of our perception. — Christoffer
If you can predict how matter is going to behave, you are acting on facts about the world that exists outside of your subjective perception. — Christoffer
But in order for science and communication to work practically for us, we need a measurement that balance our subjectivity with what we perceive as objectivity — Christoffer
And this is what absolute objectivity is about. — Christoffer
We call it objective since it predicts and behaves according to the world that exists outside of our perception and will long after the subjective viewpoint has died. — Christoffer
all the quality of life that we have around objects that humans have invented is based on the understanding of how these objects work. The practical objective understanding of the world, makes people able to form it — Christoffer
something that has reduced or erased subjectivity — Christoffer
And this is absolute objectivity, which I do not dispute, I'm arguing for a measurement of objectivity that is practical for us as humans, since absolute objectivity is in most regards meaningless for us. — Christoffer
The most objective conclusion you can do as a person that aren't educated in the climate field of science is to listen to the consensus of the scientists. To instead listen to those who oppose, the ones who does not have any education, those who use fallacies in all their arguments and put forth claims of a unproved conspiracy would be truly irrational and subjective. If a politician agrees with the scientific consensus and you do not agree with that politicians ideological position, it's not the scientists who are wrong when you don't agree with that politician, that's called guilt by proxy. — Christoffer
I think I just feel the need for two levels of the word objective — Christoffer
However practical objectivity is what I consider the definition to use in direct opposition to subjectivity... — Christoffer
What is external to the mind? — Anthony
Nothing objective exists without an observation, or, nothing "exists" apart from an observation. — Anthony
Shall I turn myself into a rock? — Anthony
I never have understood what people mean when they speak of being objective. — Anthony
If to be objective connotes existing apart from an observation...objectiveness is non existent. — Anthony
Say for the sake of argument, the observed warming was due to humans. If so, this would be the first time in the history of the earth, that humans caused the earth to warm. — wellwisher
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.