In existentialism you have a solution beyond idealism and realism, and it rests in the notion that consciousness is always consciousness of something, intentionality. This does not mean that the subject is I conscious of an object that it is not. Sartre explains this in Being and Nothingness, with reference to Husserl's noema and noesis.

Objectivity and subjectivity rests in the Cartesian problem. But what is more significant than Descartes division between a subject that is an object, is the condition of his formulation, a pre reflective Cogito.

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

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.

There are built-in "laws" of the mind which are deterministic as to what is possible or not before we begin to speak of consensus reality...which is another word for intellectual laziness. Unfortunately, the dogma and intellectual laziness of science is coming to look more and more like religion.

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

There are no guarantees that peer-review will yield an objective view. Even replicated experiments will never give us a 100% objective view.

However, we need to settle at a certain point on the less than 100% objectivity.

The best way to look at this issue is the approximation.

Enjoy the day, :cool:

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

I disagree with this ... but my disagreement is unimportant. You mean something much less objective than I do when I use the term. I'm a (so-called) subjectivist because of my understanding of, and respect for, the concept of objectivity. [That, and the realisation that there is almost nothing 'objective' that a human can know. ] We have a semantic disagreement here, centring on the term "objective". That's OK, but let's leave it there? There's many interesting hours can be spent discussing objectivity, but semantic differences aren't part of that. :wink: :up: :smile:

Why are numbers so important, here? Shouldn't we be able to discuss objectivity at the individual level? — Anthony

I was defining what the most objective knowledge we can have is. I.e however the individual work, the objective truth is always the one defined by the many if the individual of that group is trying to be objective. "Trying to be objective" is in some ways pretty obvious, it's essentially just like looking up into the sky and say it's blue and not red. If one person says it's red, it's subjective, if one person says it's red and nine others says it's blue, it's rational to deduct that the sky is blue as an objective truth, but the probability is only nine out of ten. The more people that gets in on it, the higher the consensus gets and the higher the probability of objective truth. If one person says it's red, two says it's green and ten thousand other people says it's blue, it's hard to call that not objective as a truth. And while you can say that, yes, it's only that truth in the eyes of our perception, we can only define words within the parameters of our perception and ability to be objective. So the objective definition of the word "objective" should be what we all can agree on being objective, not what is 100% objective outside of our perception. What is then the most pure objective truth out of our perception and concept of how to define that word? Well, that is defining it as the truth with the most consensus around among as many people as possible. The sky is blue, because it's objectively true for all of us, not necessarily for any aliens with other forms of perception.

To define the word objective means that we define it in order to use it, otherwise we need to stop using language since words have to loose of definitions.

But I agree that we should try and define what's objective for the individual, unfortunately I think it's impossible to be objective as an individual, therefor why I wrote what I wrote.

'm sure it's better to keep it to what communicates, what is possible and what isn't, objectively between two people only. — Anthony

For an individual to be objective, the only way I see it possible is to use a deductive way of thinking. You present premises that seem to correlate with what you can pick up with your senses and then you combine many premises to conclude something. But that requires one to be precise and not judge what you examine. Problem is that most of the premises will in pure definition be subjective, so you use subjective premises to conclude something objectively. So can the conclusion be objective? If the deductive method puts forth pure logic, by almost mathematical precision, it might, but it's hard to define a singular individual as being objective.

In essence, I don't think it's possible for a single individual to be subjective, you need a collective to reach objective results and truths.

There's many interesting hours can be spent discussing objectivity, but semantic differences aren't part of that. — Pattern-chaser

I don't mind the semantic discussion, because I think it essentially is about semantics. Without a definition baseline for the word, how do we discuss the parameters of the concept? I think the semantic difference we speak of here is that 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 in order to, let's say, advance technology. If we didn't have an objective truth, we wouldn't have been able to harness material into different technologies that we have today. If all that research was subjective, nothing would work. So objective is a reachable concept for us, but objective truth for me, requires a collective with a deductive reasoning per individual.

Your definition of objective seems to be more omnipotent, something that is a concept that we humans can never reach by the simple fact that everything is interpreted in order for us to experience anything. So the objective is unreachable, the reality that exists outside of the sensory perception we have.

But I think that even if we are limited in our perception of pure untapped reality, we have already harnessed aspects of this reality in technology and science, which points to us already understanding some objective concepts. A lot of proven theories in science have objective implications all over the universe and that's objectively true for the reality outside of our perception, as well as within our perception.

I hope that clears things up a bit for what I'm trying to reason for here?

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

Even so, the current cancerous ones had parallels in ancient philosophy. They're not an entirely new outgrowth of something from the middle ages. And the more interesting distinction between subject and object doesn't make questions about subjectivity and knowledge of an objective world go away.

— Christoffer

The collective, as I see it, has no existence; the most I could cede is that it is an average of viewpoints...the problem here being I don't much grok averages either, they don't represent or describe any thing but a mathematical abstraction...rather nebulous, without texture. Sort of like fantasy. Which is why this topic is so ironic and interesting; 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? If you subscribe to the existence of collectives, you can say they exist in variable human sects: culture, religion, politics, nationalism, corporations (insane concept of personhood), military, sports, or any authoritative doctrine which asks of complete unquestioning obeisance and excision of individual virtue and agency (deindividuation). Problem with this is reason never makes it beyond duty and obedience. Where is the physical evidence of any collective? Evidence is the ultimate authority of science.

Surely , if we are honest and look into it, we would find out that a change of course, rejection of experimental validity, inaccuracy of testing, missed confounding variables, etc., is occasioned by the decision of the agency of one individual. Again, it is impossible for two or more people to make a decision in exactly the same moment as a unified mind of one with infrangible autonomy. One person who has retained his agency becomes the mover/shaker, others toe the line in a way prefigured by the Asch Conformity Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments.

It is hoped scientists won't have such a fear of designing odd experiments that can't easily be shared they conceive of a new science as objectified by BCI (brain computer interface) network between researchers. If this were to happen, the Borg of Star Trek realized, maybe I'd have to reconsider objectivity as a reasonable approach (however, this would have to include the ability to record and transmit emotions, mentalese, mental imagery, dreams, the whole inner domain, not only what may be re presented in symbols)...until then, we have to discuss the psychological force in the mind of the individual before jumping to an automated, algorithmic collective consensus.

A shift of agency can happen in a thousand subtle ways. Then when communication with command control center (dictatorship of collective consensus) is lost, and the individual is drawn back to himself, alienation, estrangement, and panic inevitably set in as he discovers his free agency had long ago been given away.

For all the Enlightenment effaced in the irrational faith of religious dogma, it opened up another box of fundamentalism laying so much stress on metrology to the point where today this thrill of objectivity has resulted in outlandish concepts like eliminative materialism. Not sure it will end well. Some AI scientific prejudice or sectarianism will have the trappings of a new eugenics movement. If you can't be objective, then maybe you'll have to get a chip in your brain or take a drug that makes it impossible to diverge from socio-scientific constructed reality (peer review is as much about social construction of science than any rigor of method).

The collective, as I see it, has no existence; the most I could cede is that it is an average of viewpoints — Anthony

How is it viewpoints if each individual use deductive reasoning? If a thousand people use deductive reasoning to reach the same conclusion, that should be considered an objective truth by the definition of the word. Any other definition reduce the use of the word into nothing. If you view it as absolute objective, meaning any form of observation equals subjectivity, even if a collective where almost all individual conclusions have mathematical logic and all conclusions are the same without them knowing of each others conclusions, then the word objective has no meaning or purpose in language anymore because it cannot be used. If anything I would suggest that objective is used by my definition of it and that your definition is called absolute objectiveness, which refers to a cosmic objectiveness outside the realm of human perception.

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

I think you misinterpret what I actually mean by the scientific process. What I mean is that the scientific method is the closest form of method we have to reach an objective truth. It's not like saying "God told us" if we have evidence that support a claim, measurements made by many separated scientists to reach a conclusion without subjective opinions.

The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony

I never said that the collective consensus should come to a conclusion without evidence, I said that the collective in individual separation from each other, doing deductive reasoning, would reach the most objective conclusion possible when evidence is missing. If evidence is clear, each individual would through the scientific method reach a conclusion and when compared to other findings, if these checks out, the collective of scientists that individually reached the same conclusion through the evidences they found, have by consensus reached an objective truth by the definition of the word (at least by the definition of the word as in how we use it in our language).

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

If a collective use individual subjective truths based on the group they belong to, in order to reach a conclusion, that is not what I described. If each individual use a deductive reasoning, meaning, they clearly need correct premisses in order to reach an individual conclusion that is then compared to others conclusions to reach a consensus. If you are within one of these groups and you do not follow procedur, the group will not reach an objective truth. Example of this is when in a group of religious belief, each individual truth is that God exists and comparing to the others the objective truth would be that God exists, but this is false, since all the individual conclusions are based on individual belief, not deductive reasoning for the existence of God. So there is no objective truth as a conclusion of that collective. To try and be objective, means you open the doors for the collective to reach an objective truth. Trying means, by any means at your disposal, minimizing your subjective input on the matter. This is essentially what scientists do, they try to use logic, math, research, tests, more tests and so on, to reach as close to an objective truth as they can individually do and then this research goes into duplication by others to verify that this conclusion is correct regardless of the individual.

This is what I mean by the usefulness of the definition of the word, objective. If the word instead is defined as absolute objectivity, it does not have any viable use in our language, because it has no purpose anymore. And if you render the term "objective" useless, by arguing that everything is subjective, you are essentially opening a can of worms that nothing can be proven.

This absoluteness of these terms, the absoluteness of how we define things, makes it impossible to practically define the difference between proven facts/truths and subjective viewpoint. It then becomes a slippery slope in which everything can be said to be subjective and therefor nothing is true. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had the technology we use to write all of this on. If science wouldn't have been able to find objective truths, we couldn't build things based on those scientific findings.

Inventions exist, therefor knowledge of objective truths exists.
Without objective truth, we couldn't invent something with precision.

Where is the evidence of any collective? Evidence is the ultimate authority of science. — Anthony

And this isn't something I've said. Quite the opposite. If evidence exist, going through the scientific method, that would equal an objective truth in the end, as close as we can get to it in the parameters of our perception. The second best, is by deductive reasoning and logic reach conclusions that the collective also reaches. Example of that is theoretical physics, in which a lot of the theories and hypotheses doesn't have evidence, but instead deductive logic through math. Many do the same math problem to reach the same conclusion and others continue with duplication and if reaching the same conclusion, strengthens the objectiveness of the proposed truth. This is the core of what I said and the more that does this and comes to the same conclusion, the stronger that truth is in it's objectiveness. As I mentioned, it's more about probability than absolutes, because absolutes renders the term unpractical in language. If a conclusion has 99,999% probability of being an objective truth, that is and should be considered true objectiveness for human perception and the use of the term.

:starstruck:

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

Yes, I see what you're getting at. :smile: :up: On the one hand, it is convenient and useful to know things that are consistent and reliable about the world. This is an unbiased view of the world. That's the mildest definition of objective that I can think of. And yet the other end of the spectrum has its attractions too. The hard-Objectivity that considers things that are absolutely certain, because they correspond exactly to Objective Reality. When we consider such things, we realise, as you implied in what you wrote, that there is little or nothing that humans can know with that absolute degree of certainty. Thinking along these lines teaches us something useful, I think, which is that the world, as we experience it, is an uncertain place. There is no certainty, for practical purposes.

So I have sympathy with what you're saying, but I also note that it is a sort of fudge, a sort of denial of uncertainty. Maybe because it's more comfortable? :chin:

However, we need to settle at a certain point on the less than 100% objectivity. — Damir Ibrisimovic

We do? Why is that, do you think? Is a mild definition of objectivity really that useful, when it helps to convince us that there are certainties, when (from an exclusively and typically human point of view) there are few or none? I do see where you're coming from, but I wonder if we are accepting approximations that hide stuff that (maybe) ought to be more, er, visible? :chin:

...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

One problem with a 'diluted' definition of objectivity is that you can say we have reached objective truth via science, and you mean that we have reached a conclusion which is fairly reliable and consistent, to the point that we can usefully use it to predict some aspect of the behaviour of the world. But someone else hears you, and understands from your words that science provides Objective access to Objective Reality. Of course, the latter is simply wrong. But your milder definition encourages this misunderstanding. I think this worries me more than any other part of the ages-old debate over objectivity. :chin:

I also note that it is a sort of fudge, a sort of denial of uncertainty. Maybe because it's more comfortable? — Pattern-chaser

Not at all :) I think I just feel the need for two levels of the word objective. I.e Absolute objectivity is not dependent on human perception, it exists regardless of our knowledge of it. As an example, we don't know what exists outside the border of the universe. Absolute objectivity challenge us to speculate as far as our minds can stretch on a subject and that is a healthy thing to have. However practical objectivity is what I consider the definition to use in direct opposition to subjectivity for something that, if reaching a practical objective truth, is acting in the sense that it is practical for both discussions and progression of society.

As an example; even though you could use Absolute objectivity to criticise Einsteins theory of relativity, saying that we really don't know of how it works, especially since the work of quantum physics do not apply well to working in symbios with his theory. There's a practical objectivity to Einstein's theory that when balanced against a subjective viewpoint, that disagree with his theory on the basis of only subjective belief, you could argue that Einstein reached an objective truth of the universe that is as close to objectivity that we could reach to at this time. So let's say you are "inventing" the GPS and you have two people arguing about Einsteins theory of relativity. One say that you need to make up for the difference in time-dilation between the earth surface and the GPS satellite in order to have a working GPS function, while the other argues that because no one could objectively say that Einstein was right, it isn't certain that his theory would affect the practical use of the GPS system.

It's clear which one will loose this debate, since we know that Einstein's theory needs to be applied to the GPS system in order to work. The person who argues for the theory say that it's an objective truth about how the universe works and in using the word objective he is challenging the subjective opinion of the other guy. He is using the practical definition of objectivity since the absolute objectivity of the person denying Einstein's theory doesn't have any practical use in any application.

Therefore, the different definitions should exist at the same time. One is for challenging our ideas through speculations we have a hard time proving, the other is for things we can probably prove and that has a practical use for our species.

Another example is that we should hold the discussion about A.I to a practical objectivity, since that opens up for necessary precautions and scientific progress in the field, while absolute objectivity points out that we can't know anything of the consequences of A.I. One is about speculating the ramifications of high level A.I, one is for preparing the world, the science and people for A.I. Both exist in opposition to subjectivity, but practical objectivity is what we use to define rational discoveries and results in opposition to subjective inaccuracies about the world.

I think both can exist at the same time. It's almost like hard determinism and soft determinism, one has more practical value, especially in terms of the justice system. Until the justice system gets upgraded to incorporate new scientific results about crime and punishment, soft determinism suggests that we are accountable for the crimes we commit. The absolute truth to the subject seems more likely to be hard determinism, but it's hard to put that into practice in this regard. So until we have a better system, the soft deterministic solution is to accept everything as causality, except our behaviour and free will.

Same goes for objectivity. We need a practical use of the word together with it's absolute counterpart. The absolute is more true, but unable to exist as a foundation for us in a practical sense.

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

And it's a worry that i share with you. But even practical objectivity cannot become subjective, because it's the result of our best efforts to be objective in search for an answer. Using logic and scientific methods. Einstein didn't just invent his theory, he backed it up with logic but even that logic seems illogical at the quantum level, however he still pushed his theory to the level in which it is as objectively true as he could possible make it. So even if practical objectivity is more soft than the absolute, it's still unable to become a subjective opinion, since it needs evidence, logic and rational reasoning behind it.

As a term used in discussions, I think the practical use of objectivity in opposition to subjectivity, is for when someone presents a subjective opinion and you say it's not objective. What you mean is that the opinion hasn't gone through proper deductive or inductive procedures for it's conclusion, or it hasn't been tested in research or through pure logic, so you use the word objective to describe the opposite of what they provided. Even though it's not absolute, it's a way to use language to distinguish opinion from what can be described as the truth closest to our level of perception, i.e the objectivity that is practical for us as a species in our progression into the future.

Based upon what is the necessitation that objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity ?

Based on what language define it as. If there aren't clear basic definitions of the language we use, it becomes impossible to communicate or have a discourse about something.

Language evolve, but deconstructing words into oblivion just makes communication impossible.

Why isn't objectivity the polar opposite of subjectivity in your perspective?

Because it seems to me that an objectivity can only be based on Another, "radical alterity" of ourselves, another person, which is a subjectivity... But it is not the single other person that could base an objectivity, is it? If there were only you and I left on Earth, perhaps this would be true; perhaps, ideally it would only take a person and another to establish an objectivity--but not merely! For an objectivity would imply the internal negation of one's own subjectivity in order to establish a new sort of truth, that which is transpersonal, beyond what is individual for everyone. And so objectivity is transpersonal. Subjectivity is personal. The opposite of a subjectivity would be something nonpersonal or impersonal. Due to the fact that an objectivity is established upon personal ground, and the either truthful or untruthful assertion that another can suffice to be a 'radical alterity' of yourself, within the same category of being in terms of everything that it is... It cannot be the opposite of subjectivity... It is rather the result of a subjectivity denying itself absolute authority on the ground of its being-personal in order to establish being-transpersonal, for whatever reason.

It 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.

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.

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.

As I mentioned before, I view it as probability. You can measure practical objectivity by the probability of it's objectiveness. Scientific findings that have been used in inventions, that has been tested over and over and that shows the same result over and over, with every scientist who does research, coming to the same conclusion over and over, makes for a high probability of practical objectivity.

Then there's the question of objectivity and subjectivity for something impersonal, something that isn't a human agent of perception. A single computer can have a subjective handling of code, but when combined with other systems, fine-tune it into a more correct way since being tested through many types of systems. Therefore, objectivity and subjectivity does not demand human agents to function.

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.

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

But that can easily spiral down into nonsense. I get what you're implying, but this is the same as the difference I described between absolute and practical objectivity. If you put how we define words and language to the hypothetical extreme, you undermine any practical use for language as a means of spreading knowledge and progressing understanding. In order for people to actually make progress in both knowledge and practical applications, it's better to have clear definitions of our language, so that communication isn't getting in the way of understanding. Just accepting the extreme that it's impossible to truly communicate true meaning, is not practical and has no application. 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.

This is why I think it's good to find clear definitions and if a definition is so unclear that it kickstarts discussions like these, there's clearly the need for better definitions of the concept.

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

It is not that a person is objective through a collective. An objectivity is not merely the collective understanding. 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.
And objectivity does include subjective thinking, but the truth of what would be something subjectly, which is the only place a truth could possibly be for "Dasein is the foundation of truth and essentially is in the truth" (Heidegger), is transformed into a representation ONLY SAID to encompass that subjective validity. 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.

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

Sure, but this definition is still impoverished of meaning, because it is by virtue of so many configurations and alterations; of a reference point that does not encompass the truth of a subjective meaning. Regardless of everything, a word will always mean something different for you and I and everyone else. And the same is with experiences. It doesn't matter what the objective establishment of anything consists of; love, orgasms, colors, sounds, a poem, gold, silver, lead, God, Dr Pepper, medieval alchemy, etc. will always have different subjective associations attached to them. It doesn't matter that science can objectively define what taste is... Taste will always be subjective and nothing will ever suffice to replace its truth. 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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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. The conclusions of science has consequences for physical objects behaving in a certain way. If an objective fact about atoms has been concluded, it predicts behaviour of physical matter in certain situations and if the behaviour acts according to predictions based on objective facts, then they cannot be subjective and is not related to any subjective perception. The physical world is what it is, with or without us, but in order for us to understand it we need objective conclusions that relate to the physical world and can predict it. Those conclusions can never be subjective, therefore objectivity is something outside of our perception. This is what I call absolute objectivity and practical objectivity is the understanding of this through human perception that comes as close to the absolute as possible. 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.

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

And this is what absolute objectivity is about. Why I'm doing the distinction between absolute and practical is that if you cannot accept a measurement of objectivity that is practical for humans and you only have subjectivity on one hand and the absolutely unreachable for our perception and knowledge-absolute objectivity on the other, then we can only exist within subjectivity. 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. Without practical objectivity, everyone could dismiss everyone else's argument for being subjective, regardless of how close to facts about the world the are.

If you prove, through proper research and with others checking and replicating your research, a fact about the universe and the consequence is that this fact predicts how things behave, you have reached a practical objectivity. You cannot ever be sure that anything is real, however, that fact, that conclusions is not subjectivity by the definition and general understanding of the word. 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.

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

Experiences of how we perceive something cannot always be used to further our understanding of why it is or how it can be used. How you perceive wax and experience wax cannot be used for when you invent a new material using facts about the molecular structure of wax in combination with another substance. So it does matter if science can explain it, since all the technology, 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. Your experience of wax is irrelevant for the definition of objectivity in that regard. If you were a molecular chemist, you would still experience wax through your subjective emotions and opinions, but you wouldn't use that for molecular chemistry with that wax, you would use what we objectively know about the molecular structure of wax.

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

You are still talking about absolute objectivity, not the definition of practical objectivity that I'm trying to argue for here. Practical objectivity isn't meaningless since it's a form of definition that makes us balance our concept of subjectivity with something that has reduced or erased subjectivity. To die for objective truths is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with the definition of it. That gravity pulls objects of great mass closer to each other does not care for me or my experience and my experience or subjective emotions cannot dismiss that gravity exists within practical objective understanding of it. I cannot die for something that just is, regardless of my existence or not. Gravity will not end when I die and will not care for if I die, it will still be there and it's an objective truth through the lens of practical objectivity. Absolute objectivity states that we cannot know that gravity is real, because we cannot know if this world is truly real, or the universe or anything. This form of absolutes is meaningless and that is why I'm measuring objectivity in two forms, one is practical for our understanding and progression as humans, the other is academic and meaningless for most arguments.

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

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.

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

Woah woah woah slow down...

An objective fact filtered through human subjectivity... No... The subjectivity would be the fact: there is no objective fact.
Furthermore, an objectivity is not a disregarding of subjectivity but a labeling of it as bereft of a social utility.

The physical world is what it is, with or without us, — Christoffer

Supposedly...

Those conclusions can never be subjective, therefore objectivity is something outside of our perception. — Christoffer

Not only is the implicated non-sequitur, the implier is wrong. Predicting the world and the events in the world is based on subjective experience, not an objectivity. I know the sun will come up tomorrow not because of an objectivity but because of something that can be understood by consciousness (of) the world. Rendering 'subjectivity' incapable is absurd.
Not that there even is a subjectivity...

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

You call it matter. I call it experience of the world. These are atop two completely different, incommensurable epistemologies... And I think the epistemology that deals with 'matter' is exclusionary and devoid of human meaning.

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

Or just throw into the trashcan this idea of subjectivity versus objectivity...

And this is what absolute objectivity is about. — Christoffer

Socrates was not talking about not knowing anything about an objectivity. True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing... Knowing nothing... Not not knowing anything... But knowing the truth of being, of consciousness; and knowing everything else is an illusion--all that is truly known 'IS' nothing.

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

It is called objective because it more so resembles an object of our perception that is SEEMINGLY independent and representing some hidden being that is incapable of being apprehended by consciousness. This is a lie.
It is called objectivity in order to denote a transpersonal reference point by which a mundane authority can materialize.
This authority is meaningless.
The goal should be an interchangeable consciousness realizing that conscious is (of) the world.
What can be known by a consciousness transcends any representation of what is known, and has primacy over these representations.
For instance... Those objectivity-ists say that perhaps there is some objective meaning and conflate meaning with purpose or vice versa saying that the purpose of life is to reproduce. This is an absolute disgrace to human intelligence. Why? Because it labels subjectivity as insufficient with regard to an absolute authority.

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

No... Objectivity is a representation. It is secondary to experience. It is a replacing of experience for the more, perhaps, 'manageable.' But there is absolutely nothing more manageable than finding one's own existential meaning and priority in life, as opposed to becoming some scientific dilettante seeking absolutely nothing.
The greatest scientific discoveries were influenced by an interest in one's own experience, not by the objective classification of what is real as opposed to what is not.

something that has reduced or erased subjectivity — Christoffer

This would be impossible by virtue of the definition of what would be a subjectivity.
But again, I do not like this dualism Descartes has so cleverly coerced people into unconsciously adopting.

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

Why keep the word objectivity?

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

This is a magic trick, that appears to fool educated scientists, who what to believe, what they want to believe. The magic trick is based on short term versus long term thinking. When they say this was the 5th warmest summer on record, they are not talking about the 5th warmest overt the 5 billion year history of the earth They are only talking about the last 130 years. Where would this 5th warmest summer in 130 years, rate on terms of 5 billion years? We don't have enough data to say for certain.

An analogy is a college student thinking about the big party that night. He is not thinking about the major exam in a few days later. If his focus is on the immediate present, his reality will become optimization for the present. However, this may not be optimized for the future.

If he is only thinking of the party, then party to you puke, may seem optimized based on that narrow time scale. But if he added more days to his timeline, from party to major exam in a few days, the party is not seen the same way. The 130 years of direct science data collection lives in the moment, and sees what is optimized for that moment in time. I agree with their conclusion based on short sightedness but not in terms of the long view.

Climate scientist may be experts in their field, but that are layman when it comes to the brain and mind. They are not experts at seeing through magic tricks that use time illusions. None of the computer models are predicting with accuracy, because their assumption are short term. They don't assume 5 billion years of detain the past and future.

Here is some interesting data that should have revolutionized earth and climate science. Are you aware that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface? The core of the earth is like a giant engine that is pulling the mantle and crust. This changes everything, yet all the experts seem to prefer to ignore it, since it means a changing of the guard, since all experts become students again. earth's core rotates faster than the surface

The core of the earth was discovered to rotate faster than the surface of the earth by a team of scientists at Columbia University. This was published in 2005. The extra rotational speed is relatively small. It takes about 500 years for the core to lap the surface. But still, through viscoelastic friction the core is dragging the mantle and the mantle the crust.

The current theory that the rotation of the earth began during its formation and continues to exist due to no fraction in space, was an illusion, that is still being taught. The core observation changes everything we know about the earth and climate science. This is a huge wild card. However, you will not find it in any computer models since the science swamp does not know how to include it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The science swamp is not about truth but maintaining the machine.

I am a development scientist who enjoys the challenge. To help integrate this new discovery, I came uno other data that was generated at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. This data was not related per se, but was connected to the extreme phases of water. They conducted experiments where they heated and pressurize water to extreme conditions to see what happens. This is done with explosions that will generate extreme pressure and temperature pulses and the water measured.

As it turns out, at the earth science consensus conditions of temperature and pressure attributed to the deep earth crust, the mantle, the outer core and the core of the earth, water turns out to exhibit very specific phases at the conditions in each zone. In other words, the layers of the inner earth suggest that water is continuous from the atmosphere, to the oceans, to crust, and all the way to inside the core. The core engines impacts climate, weather and the ocean via the continuity of water. This is the future.

At the pressures of the upper mantle, water exists as a super ionic phase. This is nasty stuff, where hydrogen protons and oxygen separate. This phase will explode like TNT if subjected to pressure drops. This phase of water helps the crust to move and lift.

The sun evaporates water, which adds positive charge to the atmosphere. The iron core of the earth is rich in electrons. The sun, via solar heating, sets up potential to the iron core. This is possible due to the continuity of the water to the core. Essentially the sun is driving the water to rust the iron core, releasing the energy that drives the engine.

I think I just feel the need for two levels of the word objective — Christoffer

And I understand why you think so. But I'm still bothered, not specifically by you, but by our (i.e. humans) general tendency to use vocabulary that, er, enhances the confidence we have in the things we (think we) know. We express our educated guesses - and this is what they are - using words like "objective", "certain", "definite". And we use euphemisms like probability, so that our guesses will sound like they're better founded than a more truthful "guess" might imply. We even say "is", which does not allow for any uncertainty, instead of (for example) "seems". Our need for certainty is clearly a deep-seated thing with us humans! :wink:

If you're interested in this, there's a lot of stuff on the net. I especially like this quote, from an article about E-prime: "Take the phrase, "My brother is lazy." It seems clear, but Korzybski and Bourland would say it deceives: it implies certainty and objectivity, when in reality it expresses an opinion." Here's the full article.

Yes, I quibble about such things quite a lot. :wink: But I'm not just nit-picking. :up: The terms we use frame what we say. Pollsters know that the answer to a poll depends largely on how the question is phrased. Simply using a more confident selection of words makes our subject matter appear more credible and reliable. Unjustifiably, IMO.

However practical objectivity is what I consider the definition to use in direct opposition to subjectivity... — Christoffer

I also wonder about your use of the term "subjectivity". I wonder what you mean by it? And most of all, I wonder why you say several times that subjectivity must be opposed, expressing it in a way that says any sane and reasonable person would agree without a second thought.

We subjectivists meet in dark and secluded caverns, as we must, away from decent people. And some of us worship the Unholy Binary - Eris and Cthulhu - but do we really deserve this type of treatment? :wink: What have we done to you? :smile: Seriously: what do you mean by "subectivist"?

What is external to the mind? — Anthony

Everything other than the mind and that which is mental. The list would be vast and would consist of numerous objects such as tables, chairs, trees, rocks, stars, and planets.

Nothing objective exists without an observation, or, nothing "exists" apart from an observation. — Anthony

You can't possibly know that, and I don't find that a convincing proposition.

Shall I turn myself into a rock? — Anthony

That's hilarious. What nonsense reasoning has lead you to the absurd conclusion that you'd need to turn yourself into a rock?

I never have understood what people mean when they speak of being objective. — Anthony

I think most of us pick this up from context. But never mind. :wink: I wonder if it's the way you're choosing to look at it? Because I can't make sense of this at all:

If to be objective connotes existing apart from an observation...objectiveness is non existent. — Anthony

Can you pick this apart for me? You seem to say that existence depends on being observed. So if you look at me, I exist, but when you blink ... I disappear? :chin:

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

Do you not think that it's a bit silly to judge the possibility of human causation on a timescale of the entire history of Earth? After all, our ancestors have only been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago, civilisation as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialisation started in the earnest only in the 1800s [1], whereas Earth has been around for about 4.543 billion years [2]. It therefore shouldn't be at all surprising that it would be the first time in the history of Earth that humans caused Earth to warm, given that that would have been impossible for a period spanning billions of years, and then, even since our existence, our contributions would have been on a much less significant scale until at least the last few hundred years.