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
the fact in reality is separate from the concept fact, and it's separate from talk about those facts. — Sam26
And how would we know that we had the right rules? — Banno
Which is why i think it better to avoid using the terms, if at all possible. — Banno
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
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.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
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.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
Delve into what - The topic of your thread? — Harry Hindu
We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view. — Harry Hindu
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
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 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.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
Isn't that what I already said?Ideally, yes, assuming perfect knowledge, information, and exchange of thought. — Posty McPostface
And that is why clarifying definitions are so important, unenlightened. :smirk: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
The same goes for your "heap". — Harry Hindu
I don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested.There are degrees of "heaps". — Harry Hindu
Yeah, I'm in the dark here.It seems to me that you are trapped and are content to stay that way. — Harry Hindu
I wasn't sure, so I had to put it in my own words.Isn't that what I already said? — 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. — unenlightened
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 don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested. — Posty McPostface
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
Whatever it may be, we're impaired by them as far as logical thinking is concerned. This impairment is termed ''subjectivity''. — TheMadFool
We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view. — Harry Hindu
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
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
Certainty is not required, — Posty McPostface
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.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.
Some people, including me, would disagree with calling subjectivity an impairment, even in the context of logical thinking. — T Clark
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
I'll think about that, thanks. — Posty McPostface
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.