All of this objective/subjective stuff pertains entirely to informal languages, not formal one's where ambiguity and vagueness are wholly absent. An important thing to keep in mind, illustrating that ambiguity, vagueness, and inexactness are contributing factors (not the only one's though as there are other factors too, which I am wondering about also) to the objective/subjective divide.

Come on Clark, they're two different words with different meanings. I'm loathe to use the term "self-evident," but if there ever was a case that was self-evident, this is one.

Come on Clark, they're two different words with different meanings. I'm loathe to use the term "self-evident," but if there ever was a case that was self-evident, this is one. — Sam26

Yes, "objective" and "omniscient" are different words with different definitions, which is trivial, which may be what you are saying.

On the other hand, it seems clear to me there is no true objectivity without omniscience. You can add to that the fact that neither exists. The idea that there is no objective reality is not an exotic one. I'm not the first one to think of it. It's been discussed here on the forum a number of times in the year I've been here. I remember discussing it on the old forum too.

"Objective" is a kind of narrative, usually in third person.

"Objective" is a kind of narrative, usually in third person. — frank

I have no problem making the objective/subjective distinction at the local level. There is value in knowing that an idea or fact is tied to documented evidence agreed on by relevant observers. That's the kind of tool we use all the time. It's a useful way of seeing things.

It's when you grant that distinction some sort of universal applicability that it falls apart.

It is curious. One might ask, what sorts of things can be described as objective or subjective, and what sorts of things fall outside the scope of the dichotomy? The scope of the distinction surely has some bearing on its significance?

one is being objective or subjective. — Posty McPostface

On the face of it, it does not make sense to say of a subject, that it is objective. And yet...

subjective reporting: that which the patient themselves are reporting. O stands for Objective reporting: that which the Doctor observed of the patient — ArguingWAristotleTiff

... This is interesting, because one of the things the doctor observes is the subjective report of the patient. For example, it makes a difference to the doctor whether the patient indicates the location of the pain with a finger, a flat hand, or a fist. One might say that doctors are taught to objectify patients, such that their reports are treated as symptoms rather than communications. The doctor's reports are objective, and thus the doctor does not need to objectify himself, his observations are trained to be 'disinterested' and when he arrives at a diagnosis it is ...

An objective explanation — Harry Hindu

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.

an objective view is impossible — Harry Hindu

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.

Objective knowledge is... — Sam26

You deserve a better quote, Sam-I-am; it makes sense to divide knowledge into knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the object, and yet this is not what people have been wanting to refer to. So I will play hard-ball with you for a moment. Whatever is knowledge is true, and therefore objective.I can only know from what you tell me that you like orange juice, but if you are honest, I know the same thing that you know.

there are no truly objective issues. — T Clark

What's an issue? I'm inclined to agree with you to the extent that an issue has to be an issue for some subject that they are not indifferent to. But beware the 'truly' formation it invites complaints of 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

On the other hand, it seems clear to me there is no true objectivity without omniscience. You can add to that the fact that neither exists. The idea that there is no objective reality is not an exotic one. I'm not the first one to think of it. It's been discussed here on the forum a number of times in the year I've been here. I remember discussing it on the old forum too. — T Clark

Why the quantifier true in front of objectivity? Something is either objective or it is not. Why do I need to postulate omniscience in order to say that it's objective that the Earth has one moon? I don't see the connection, nor the need for omniscience. Moreover, many things get discussed in these forums, but that doesn't mean that they have significance, or that they're true, or that the discussion is worthwhile.

Sure many people make the claim that there is no objective reality, but that belies what the words mean and how they're used.

Finally, this was started with the claim that the word objective is somehow synonymous with omniscience. You still have given no evidence that this is the case. The burden of proof is on you, because most people would say what I've said, viz., that they're two different words with different meanings. To be synonymous - you have to have different words with the same meanings, or nearly the same meanings.

What's an issue? I'm inclined to agree with you to the extent that an issue has to be an issue for some subject that they are not indifferent to. But beware the 'truly' formation it invites complaints of 'no true scotsman' fallacy. — unenlightened

I'm not trying to be obscure or wishy-washy about what I'm saying. I'll try to be as definitive as I can. There are no objective facts, issues, ideas, observations, perceptions, events, measurements, interpretations, meanings, thoughts, explanations, phenomena,..... What did I leave out?

There are no objective facts — T Clark

Then, is that not an objective fact unto itself?

Someone had to say it...

What did I leave out? — T Clark

Objects.

You deserve a better quote, Sam-I-am; it makes sense to divide knowledge into knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the object, and yet this is not what people have been wanting to refer to. So I will play hard-ball with you for a moment. Whatever is knowledge is true, and therefore objective.I can only know from what you tell me that you like orange juice, but if you are honest, I know the same thing that you know. — unenlightened

If I say, "I like oranges," the truth of the statement is dependent on me, i.e., my likes and dislikes for example, and this is what makes it subjective. It's also a contingent truth besides being a subjective truth. There are subjective contingent truths like the one I cited, and there are objective contingent truths like the Earth has one moon.

Of course if it's knowledge it's true, that's not disputed, but not all knowledge is objective. If you know that Sam likes orange juice, the truth of that statement is dependent on me, not anything other than how I feel or think about oranges. Therefore, it's a piece of subjective knowledge, not objective knowledge. Of course you know the same thing that I know, but the point is that it's dependent on me, that's why it's subjective. Objective knowledge or facts are independent of minds, i.e., we could all cease to exist and the Earth would still have one moon, but if we all ceased to exist all subjective truths would simply be non-existent.

I think Tiff gave a good response. I'll add a bit more. As Tiff pointed out, if I give you a report of what happening internally, it's clearly subjective, i.e., it originates with the subject. If I give a piece of knowledge that is dependent on me, then it's also subjective. For example, it's true that I like orange juice, and someone can claim that they know that I like orange juice, but this kind of knowledge is dependent on the subject (me). Objective knowledge is not dependent of the how I feel or think, it's independent of how I feel or think. Thus, the fact that the Earth has one moon is an objective fact, i.e., it's not dependent on how anyone feels or thinks. Objective facts can exist apart from minds, subjective facts cannot. This is not that difficult to comprehend. I love the way people want to throw out words that they find difficult, or that they cannot fit into their world view. — Sam26

I think Tiff's response was good, too. What it gave was a very clear context of usage. I would say, however, that the context of usage for objective/subjective is not always so clear as that.

For one, I wasn't sure if the OP was even talking about knowledge per se (I see un brought up this point too). We could be talking about beliefs, facts, knowledge, or even entities. Any given philosopher has some project in mind which might help to understand the terms, but in speaking together, here, I'd say it is hard to pin down the exact meaning of the terms without a little leg-work. With Tiff's example we knew what was under consideration -- symptoms. So a patient gave a subjective symptom, whereas a doctor -- playing the role of an analyst -- gives an objective one. Makes perfect sense.

But using the words objective and subjective does not always play out so smoothly, nor is it clear what domain is under consideration even.

Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used. — Sam26

I am more inclined to agree with you, but I didn't want to raise the point. I mostly wanted to understand what the implication was, regardless of whatever theory of meaning we might subscribe to.

"I like oranges," the truth of the statement is dependent on me, i.e., my likes and dislikes for example, and this is what makes it subjective. — Sam26

we could all cease to exist and the Earth would still have one moon. But if we all ceased to exist all subjective truths would simply be non-existent. — Sam26

If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference?

But using the words objective and subjective does not always play out so smoothly, nor is it clear what domain is under consideration even. — Moliere

I agree, but that's true of most subjects, things can and do get muddy. However, generally it seems fairly easy, especially in Tiff's case, to delineate between the subjective and objective.

For one, I wasn't sure if the OP was even talking about knowledge per se (I see un brought up this point too). — Moliere

Well, that's because I don't consider knowledge to be subject to the objective-subjective dichotomy.

You were talking about criteria for evaluating knowledge though, right?

It seems to me, re-reading your OP, your saying that you can replace all talk of objective or subjective knowledge with talk of criteria for knowledge. Though without the categories objective/subjective.

So you just mean that there are criteria for counting something as knowledge, and we can argue about those rather than argue over whether or not something is objective or subjective..

If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference? — unenlightened

Subjective truths are dependent on minds, objective truths are not, so while it's true that if certain objects failed to exist, then truths about those objects would be meaningless. Thus both truths would fail to obtain without the supporting criteria, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the two kinds of truths.

Yes.

Why the quantifier true in front of objectivity? Something is either objective or it is not. — Sam26

Not true. The term is used in at least two different ways. 1) well supported by unbiased evidence, e.g. the reporter was objective or 2) absolute congruence with reality independent of mind, e.g. the way things would be if no consciousness existed.

Why do I need to postulate omniscience in order to say that it's objective that the Earth has one moon? I don't see the connection, nor the need for omniscience. — Sam26

Earth has a number of things in orbit around it. We've chosen to call one of them "the moon." We've defined it as one of a kind. Just like Pluto used to be a planet but now it's not. That distinction makes a lot of sense.

We've observed the behavior of matter and energy. Based on those observations, we've concluded that, at the smallest scales, matter is made up of particles which are acted on by specific types of forces. Those distinctions make a lot of sense also, but they don't explain how the world works except in the most simplistic way. That is not predictable from reductionist, so-called objective "facts."

Moreover, many things get discussed in these forums, but that doesn't mean that they have significance, or that they're true, or that the discussion is worthwhile.

Sure many people make the claim that there is no objective reality, but that belies what the words mean and how they're used. — Sam26

My point was that a denial of objective reality is a well-established, well-supported philosophical position. And, no, it's not just a matter of language and words. If you want to say that position is self-evidently insignificant and not worth discussing, that's your choice.

Finally, this was started with the claim that the word objective is somehow synonymous with omniscience. You still have given no evidence that this is the case. The burden of proof is on you, because most people would say what I've said, viz., that they're two different words with different meanings. To be synonymous - you have to have different words with the same meanings, or nearly the same meanings. — Sam26

Here's what I wrote:

Yes, "objective" and "omniscient" are different words with different definitions, which is trivial, which may be what you are saying. — T Clark

So, I acknowledged you were correct.

Then, is that not an objective fact unto itself? — Posty McPostface

No. It's not a fact at all. It's a metaphysical position.

If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference? — unenlightened

I'll go further, if Sam and the rest of us did not exist, earths and moons would also cease to exist.

Not true. The term is used in at least two different ways. 1) well supported by unbiased evidence, e.g. the reporter was objective or 2) absolute congruence with reality independent of mind, e.g. the way things would be if no consciousness existed. — T Clark

Both of these definitions support my contention, viz., that there is no need for the word "true" in front of "objectivity." Something is objective if it is either one of those definitions. How does this support your use of "true objectivity?"

Earth has a number of things in orbit around it. We've chosen to call one of them "the moon." We've defined it as one of a kind. Just like Pluto used to be a planet but now it's not. That distinction makes a lot of sense.

We've observed the behavior of matter and energy. Based on those observations, we've concluded that, at the smallest scales, matter is made up of particles which are acted on by specific types of forces. Those distinctions make a lot of sense also, but they don't explain how the world works except in the most simplistic way. That is not predictable from reductionist, so-called objective "facts." — T Clark

How does any of this support the contention that "objective" is synonymous with "omniscience?" I don't see any connection?

My point was that a denial of objective reality is a well-established, well-supported philosophical position. And, no, it's not just a matter of language and words. If you want to say that position is self-evidently insignificant and not worth discussing, that's your choice. — T Clark

We can go back and forth about what's well established, but I don't see any good arguments that there is no objective reality that make sense. Most of these arguments are misunderstandings, and most of them are misunderstandings of the way we derive meaning from words. I'm not saying that it's insignificant, I was simply pointing out that because something is discussed or argued for, that doesn't make it worthwhile, significant, or true. Many things are discussed in these forums and in philosophical circles that bare little resemblance to reality.

I'd have to say that if that be the criteria for subjective and objective truths that you're using the words differently from the scenario with a patient and a doctor. First the domain of discourse has already changed from symptoms to truths. And secondly the mind wasn't really part of the definition of objective or subjective in the case of a patient and a doctor -- rather, it was who was reporting what which determined if a symptom was objective or subjective. The roles determined the meaning of the terms, not whether something depended upon a mind or not.

I think the words are quite squirrelly. So, yes, they can be used, but they have a tendency to shift meaning without notice.

How would you parse Tiff's example, in that case? OR do you mean just to restrict yourself to discussions of objective knowledge only?

I'll go further, if Sam and the rest of us did not exist, earths and moons would also cease to exist. — T Clark

But there is no evidence for this contention Clark. Unless you want to cite quantum mechanical theories, but even there, there is disagreement about what it means to say that something obtains because we're looking at it.

I'll go further, if Sam and the rest of us did not exist, earths and moons would also cease to exist. — T Clark

You didn't quite catch Posty's point earlier. You are treating objective statements as if they're truth apt.

That's all you need to be an embracer of objectivity.

How would you parse Tiff's example, in that case? OR do you mean just to restrict yourself to discussions of objective knowledge only? — Moliere

Well, I am only for the moment talking about knowledge. To answer you question though, pragmatically speaking the patient is the subject at the doctors office with some purpose (objective) and the doctor is fulfilling this shared goal of returning the patient back to health.

Subjective truths are dependent on minds, objective truths are not, — Sam26

Well there is a sense at least in which all truths are dependent on minds, to the extent that truth is a property of propositions, and propositions need proposers. I think you need stronger term than 'dependent on' - would you say that subjective truths are about (states of) mind? But even then, one can establish beyond reasonable doubt mens rea in a court of law.

And if one could not, it would become a beetle in a box. Oddly, the distinction as you are making it seems counter to Wittgenstein.

But what I wanted to draw attention town my first post was how very differently folks are using the terms, about knowledge, about attitudes, about explanations, about ways of being, about issues and so on.

But there is no evidence for this contention Clark. Unless you want to cite quantum mechanical theories, but even there, there is disagreement about what it means to say that something obtains because we're looking at it. — Sam26

"Moon" and "Earth" are concepts. Products of minds. They have no reality independent of language. If there were no consciousness, all there would be is a big pile of undifferentiated goo, or as we philosophers like to call it, the Tao.

You didn't quite catch Posty's point earlier. You are treating objective statements as if they're truth apt. — frank

I guess I did miss it. Can you give me a link to the particular post you're talking about.