Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myth
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myth
But what inquiry/investigation has been conducted that every single inquirer/investigator has repeated?
How do we know that any inquirer/investigator has affected the outcome of an inquiry/investigation as little as possible without having every capable agent--past, present, future; dead, alive, born in the future--repeat the inquiry/investigation?
The issue here is not accuracy. An inquiry/investigation such as, say, a lab experiment in physics could be designed so that 100 different people repeating it get the same results but those results could be inaccurate because, oh, the equipment used to make measurements is defective. The issue is objectivity--the outcome not being affected by who is conducting the inquiry/investigation.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Burning ghost wrote:Objectivity is an ideal to work toward not a reality to achieve (so to speak!).
Ideal according to whose values?
Ideal or not, some people in the world, such as Enlightenment thinkers and their disciples (pretty much everybody participating in contemporary Western intellectual life) have decided that objectivity is needed.
My point is that when we think we have any degree of objectivity we may be deluding ourselves. Unless the aforementioned definition of objectivity is wrong, reason seems to dictate that we have never had what we can call objectivity--and we never will. Or has there been an inquiry/investigation that EVERY SINGLE PERSON has repeated and the outcome was constant?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
We combine objectivity with empiricism and techniques of measuring to better investigate the world.
It sounds like you have your own idea of what "objectivity" means. It is okay to have such, but you need to share your subjective view so we reach a reasonable objective understanding. Otherwise we won't be able to understand each other.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: September 1st, 2016, 11:12 am
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Your definies states neither necessary, nor sufficient conditions for your definiendum. Claims about the objectivity of the world imply commitments to (a) the existence of a world that is external to the mind, (b) intentionality of our belief contents, and (c) the claim that at least some propositions are determinately true or determinately false, though perhaps not all.WisdomNotStrife wrote:[...] definition of objectivity: an inquiry/investigation is objective when every inquirer/investigator who follows the exact same steps gets the exact same results/outcome.
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Burning ghost wrote:Well ... without objectivity we wouldn't be able to communicate, language would not exist...
People communicate their subjective perceptions, opinions, feelings, etc. all of the time. And they do it with language.
Burning ghost wrote:We combine objectivity with empiricism and techniques of measuring to better investigate the world...
But how do we know when we have objectivity?
If the definition of an objective inquiry/investigation is one where every inquirer/investigator who follows the same steps will get the same results, how do we know if every inquirer/investigator following the same steps getting the same results is the case? The only way I see that we could know would be to have every capable inquirer/investigator who has ever lived and who will ever live to repeat the inquiry/investigation, and that is impossible.
Burning ghost wrote:It sounds like you have your own idea of what "objectivity" means...
No, it is the best definition I have, but it is not my own definition. I got it from external sources.
Burning ghost wrote:It is okay to have such, but you need to share your subjective view so we reach a reasonable objective understanding. Otherwise we won't be able to understand each other.
It is not my subjective view. It is me repeating what I have gathered from the thinking of others. I may have misconstrued or distorted their thinking, but it is still informed entirely by their thinking.
I think people confuse objectivity with accuracy, absoluteness, infallibility, foolproofness, etc. Objectivity is none of those things. It is about the influence of an investigator on the outcome of an investigation, nothing more, nothing less. An investigation could be objective but inaccurate. An investigation could be objective but leave a lot of doubt. Etc.
And no inquiry/investigation is purely subjective or objective. It is a matter of degree.
But if one's goal is for his/her inquiry/investigation to be as objective as possible, how does he/she know how objective it is?
Maybe we don't really know--maybe we just assume that everybody following the same steps would get the same results. Maybe there are unspoken rules about how big of a sample size--how many different repetitions by how many different people--means that we can confidently say that we have a certain degree of objectivity.
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
NicoL wrote:Claims about the objectivity of the world imply commitments to (a) the existence of a world that is external to the mind,...
I think that that is at best tangential to the question.
We agree that a certain amount of space is 1 inch. I look at an insect and report that it is 3/4 of an inch long. You look at that same insect and report that it is 1 inch long.
Or we make a ruler with marks representing that amount of space that we agree is 1/8 of an inch. We both place the ruler next to the insect and compare the length of its body to the marks on the ruler. We both report that the insect is 7/8 of an inch long.
The latter is greater objectivity. It is to a greater degree removing the perception, beliefs, etc. of the investigator as an influence on the outcome of the investigation.
The relationship between ourselves and any external world are not the issue. The relationship between ourselves and the outcomes of our inquiries/investigations is the issue.
NicoL wrote:(b) intentionality of our belief contents,...
I do not know what that means.
NicoL wrote:and (c) the claim that at least some propositions are determinately true or determinately false, though perhaps not all.
It is not about true or false.
It is about objective or subjective.
An inquiry/investigation could be as objective as possible but yield results that are false. The aforementioned ruler could be defective and 7/8 of an inch as marked on it is really 1 inch, therefore the statement that the insect's length is 7/8 of an inch is a false statement. However, the greater degree of objectivity comparing something to an 1/8 inch on a ruler rather than the image of 1/8 inch in our minds remains.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
This is what theists are claiming, i.e. an objective God exists as real.
Rational people will never claim absolute objectivity but rather relative or conditional objectivity.
Relative objectivity is intersubjectivity conditioned and qualified to an agreed Framework and System.
Thus the reliability of any objective truths is dependent on the reliability of the Framework and System [with its process and assumptions] it is grounded upon.
The reliability of a Framework and System is dependent on the consistent results it produce and whether the potential and resulting utilities is positive to humanity or not.
Take for example the Scientific Framework and System [with is Scientific Method, assumptions, etc]. The resultant conclusions, theories and knowledge are subjected to the test of repeatability, verifiability, testability and minimal subjectivity. In addition, the theories and knowledge also has great utilities that are critical to the well being of mankind.
In this case we can assert Scientific theories has a high degree of objectivity conditioned upon the above criteria and its Framework and System.
The test of objectivity is thus measured in relation to its established Framework and System plus the degree of subjectivity involved in arriving at its conclusions.
A theistic theological Framework and System is highly subjective because the degree of subjectivity involved is high. Its fundamental premise [God exists] cannot be verified with repeated testing and empirical evidences.
The results of an beauty contest is objective because there is intersubjective consensus between the judges based on a certain set of criteria. The degree of objectivity in this case is low because there is too much subjectivity [i.e. the personal subjective judgment of the judges] involved.
From one ultimate perspective, everything [including objectivity] can be argued to be an illusion.
However from a practical point of view, we want to ignore the above and focus on relative objectivity as something that is useful to humanity.
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Spectrum wrote:Any claim for an absolute objectivity would be an illusion or myth...
The question is about objectivity in general.
Maybe some people believe that they have unmediated access to reality, but I would say that they are a small minority and are not taken seriously. They probably have no concept of objectivity anyway. People value objectivity because they recognize the limits of their own potential to know reality, and they want reliable results. Anybody who thinks that he/she already knows something for certain doesn't think that there is any further inquiring/investigating to be done and therefore is not going to be concerned about an inquiry/investigation having any degree of objectivity.
Spectrum wrote:This is what theists are claiming, i.e. an objective God exists as real...
Again, maybe some people believe that they have unmediated access to reality, but I would say that they are a small minority and are not taken seriously.
Most people accept that they know very little, want to know truth/reality, actively seek truth/reality, and want their pursuit of truth/reality to produce reliable results. That includes theists.
Theists spend a lot of time, energy and other resources asking questions, searching for answers, etc. They do not want the results of their efforts to be unreliable. They do not want the resources they have spent to be wasted.
But I think that the overwhelming majority of theists will tell you that in spite of all of that effort and expense they have doubts about some of their beliefs, some of their understanding, etc.
Spectrum wrote:Rational people will never claim absolute objectivity but rather relative or conditional objectivity.
Relative objectivity is intersubjectivity conditioned and qualified to an agreed Framework and System...
Informed, rational people never believe in absolute objectivity in the first place. Nothing is purely subjective. Nothing is purely objective. It is a matter of degree.
I would probably need only one hand to count the number of people I am aware of wanting to live in some perpetual subjective state not concerned about how their knowledge compares to anything outside of their own perceptions, thoughts, etc. or who believe that they have unmediated access to some ultimate reality--if I could think of any.
Spectrum wrote:Thus the reliability of any objective truths is dependent on the reliability of the Framework and System [with its process and assumptions] it is grounded upon.
The reliability of a Framework and System is dependent on the consistent results it produce and whether the potential and resulting utilities is positive to humanity or not.
Take for example the Scientific Framework and System [with is Scientific Method, assumptions, etc]. The resultant conclusions, theories and knowledge are subjected to the test of repeatability, verifiability, testability and minimal subjectivity. In addition, the theories and knowledge also has great utilities that are critical to the well being of mankind.
In this case we can assert Scientific theories has a high degree of objectivity conditioned upon the above criteria and its Framework and System...
Without every capable inquirer/investigator repeating an inquiry/investigation, how do we ever know that we have any degree of objectivity?
Scientific investigations could be nothing more than the perceptions of the tiny percentage of people who have performed them. The utility of the results of such investigations could just be dumb luck.
Spectrum wrote:The test of objectivity is thus measured in relation to its established Framework and System plus the degree of subjectivity involved in arriving at its conclusions...
That sounds like "The less subjective something is, the more objective it is". That sounds tautological, redundant and meaningless.
Spectrum wrote:A theistic theological Framework and System is highly subjective because the degree of subjectivity involved is high. Its fundamental premise [God exists] cannot be verified with repeated testing and empirical evidences...
Let's not conflate objectivity with empiricism.
There are non-empirical things that we attempt to objectively investigate, such as metaphysics.
Spectrum wrote:The results of an beauty contest is objective because there is intersubjective consensus between the judges based on a certain set of criteria. The degree of objectivity in this case is low because there is too much subjectivity [i.e. the personal subjective judgment of the judges] involved...
The same with music, art, literature, etc.
An interesting question--a research project for an economist or somebody like that, maybe--would be this: how much of a role, if any, does objective criteria play in the price of a work of art, and how much of a role does the subjective tastes of consumers play in that price?
Spectrum wrote:From one ultimate perspective, everything [including objectivity] can be argued to be an illusion.
However from a practical point of view, we want to ignore the above and focus on relative objectivity as something that is useful to humanity.
But, again, how do we ever really know that we have any degree of objectivity?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
I am not saying I don't understand your general point. The issue I have, as always, is the clarity of how you're presenting the problem. I hope you understand this and work out a better and more precise way of expressing the problem.
I have been investigating this very problem for a long time myself! It covers all kind of different things such as empiricism and rationalism, ontology and epistemology, and the differences of explaining The World between the language of mathematics and other technical, and colloquial, uses of language.
As mentioned above the "objective" is effectively "intersubjectivity".
If you are saying "objectivity is an illusion" then I can only ask, if so, what is not an illusion? It appears you are then, by relation, saying that the subjective is not an illusion, yet we are well aware that something may appear to be X to us yet be shown to us, at a later date, to be Y. What is really known in all of this is the "appearing to be as X" is a 'real' illusion. The illusion is only revealed to us through active investigation because we come to notice something "out of place" or apply some pattern to the subjective experience that reveals a more complete picture.
Anyway, I hope I have said something of use to you. If you don't find anything useful then I can only ask you to explain what is NOT an illusion? If we regard everything as an "illusion" then we are slipping into extreme skepticism or even solipsism. Spectrum has suggested "relativism" as an answer to this problem to some degree. Again though, even "relativism" is at risk of falling into the same space of the resolute skeptic, an apathy toward fields of investigation, or into nihilism/solipsism.
It may be worth investigating the limitations , and enigmas , thrown up by the relativistic attitude? Of course within "relativism" there are many facets for us to view. In anthropology relativism is a VERY important thing to keep in mind when dealing with 'facts'. We are all very clearly viewing The World from our own perspective, what we hope to do is see the 'truth' beyond our mere belief or opinion. We nevertheless are required to hold opinions and beliefs in order for us to have something objectively held in our minds as a 'truth'. The most prominent 'truths' we possess are those, as spectrum stated, bound within rigidly defined rules and systems. This is not to say that these "rules and systems" are 'in-themselves' objective reality in an "out there" sense, but only that these "rules and systems" allow us to define to a greater degree propositions from which to elaborate on what The World is, in an objective sense beyond the appearance of.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: September 1st, 2016, 11:12 am
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Other than this, I repeat that your definition of "objectivity" does not provide necessary and sufficient conditions for your definiendum. Every investigator could follow the same steps and get the same results, but this does not imply that the process they were following was objective.
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Burning ghost wrote:WNS -
I am not saying I don't understand your general point. The issue I have, as always, is the clarity of how you're presenting the problem. I hope you understand this and work out a better and more precise way of expressing the problem.
I have been investigating this very problem for a long time myself! It covers all kind of different things such as empiricism and rationalism, ontology and epistemology, and the differences of explaining The World between the language of mathematics and other technical, and colloquial, uses of language.
As mentioned above the "objective" is effectively "intersubjectivity".
If you are saying "objectivity is an illusion" then I can only ask, if so, what is not an illusion? It appears you are then, by relation, saying that the subjective is not an illusion, yet we are well aware that something may appear to be X to us yet be shown to us, at a later date, to be Y. What is really known in all of this is the "appearing to be as X" is a 'real' illusion. The illusion is only revealed to us through active investigation because we come to notice something "out of place" or apply some pattern to the subjective experience that reveals a more complete picture.
Anyway, I hope I have said something of use to you. If you don't find anything useful then I can only ask you to explain what is NOT an illusion? If we regard everything as an "illusion" then we are slipping into extreme skepticism or even solipsism. Spectrum has suggested "relativism" as an answer to this problem to some degree. Again though, even "relativism" is at risk of falling into the same space of the resolute skeptic, an apathy toward fields of investigation, or into nihilism/solipsism.
It may be worth investigating the limitations , and enigmas , thrown up by the relativistic attitude? Of course within "relativism" there are many facets for us to view. In anthropology relativism is a VERY important thing to keep in mind when dealing with 'facts'. We are all very clearly viewing The World from our own perspective, what we hope to do is see the 'truth' beyond our mere belief or opinion. We nevertheless are required to hold opinions and beliefs in order for us to have something objectively held in our minds as a 'truth'. The most prominent 'truths' we possess are those, as spectrum stated, bound within rigidly defined rules and systems. This is not to say that these "rules and systems" are 'in-themselves' objective reality in an "out there" sense, but only that these "rules and systems" allow us to define to a greater degree propositions from which to elaborate on what The World is, in an objective sense beyond the appearance of.
I am talking about perceptions/inquiries/investigations. I am talking about them having a certain quality/state/condition: a degree of objectivity. I am suggesting that maybe we don't really know that a perception/inquiry/investigation has that quality/state/condition. I am suggesting that maybe we are deluding ourselves when we think that changes to a perception/inquiry/investigation, such as using a ruler rather than images in our minds to make measurements, is increasing the objectivity of the perception/inquiry/investigation--is decreasing the influence that the person performing the perception/inquiry/investigation has on the outcome.
For example, it could be that only people who would get a certain outcome performing a scientific experiment are drawn to performing scientific experiments. Any corrections/refinements within empirical science are, therefore, that tiny group of people (relative to the entire past and present human population) who do science finding common ground among themselves rather than increasingly removing the influence that their selves have on the outcome of an experiment.
Unless EVERY SINGLE PERSON performs the experiment, how do we really know that we are eliminating any biases, distortions, etc.?
In other words, maybe every perception/inquiry/investigation amounts to confirmation bias no matter how hard we try to establish objectivity, and we are fooling ourselves if we think otherwise.
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
NicoL wrote:Your ask in your original post "How do we know that any inquirer/investigator has affected the outcome of an inquiry/investigation as little as possible [...]?". Do we need to know, for the inquiry itself to be objective? If there is an objective truth about the process that must be followed in order to remove all subjectivity from a specific kind of inquiry, then that process will provide what you call "objectivity of inquiry". We may have gotten lucky to stumble upon it, and also be unable to prove it does provide objectivity, but still - we are using it and it removes subjectivity from our process as a matter of fact...
I never said anything about any process, let alone any process objectively being the process the must be followed.
I simply demarcated the quality/state/condition that gives a perception/inquiry/investigation a marginal degree of objectivity: the influence of who is performing the perception/inquiry/investigation on the outcome is diminished. The process employed--personal observation (like a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes), hermeneutics, rigorous peer-reviewed empirical science, or something else--is beside the point.
[quote="NicoL]Other than this, I repeat that your definition of "objectivity" does not provide necessary and sufficient conditions for your definiendum. Every investigator could follow the same steps and get the same results, but this does not imply that the process they were following was objective.[/quote]
I never said that any investigation where everybody who follows the same steps gets the same results can be deemed to be one thing or another.
I said that in order for there to be objectivity a conscious effort must be made to minimize the influence that the person performing the investigation has on the outcome of the investigation. If the investigation is in fact designed so that the outcome is not influenced by the person performing it then reason dictates that every person performing the investigation will get the same outcome.
The constant theme in my words has been the relationship between investigator and the outcome of investigation. I have suggested that maybe our beliefs about how we are able to control that relationship are delusional. Anything outside of that is beyond the scope of this discussion, whatever other concepts or words can be associated with "objectivity".
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
If I understand you correctly you are talking about heuristics? Certainly there is a kind of thinking and tradition of science that creates a certain "style" of thinking, and a certain way of approaching problems.
May I ask what you've been reading that relates to this idea? Being someone who has taken an interest in Husserl I see something familiar in what you are saying and the use of the term "hermeneutics" also suggests something in the area of a phenomenological approach?
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Re: Further evidence that objectivity may be an illusion/myt
Burning ghost wrote:WNS -
If I understand you correctly you are talking about heuristics? Certainly there is a kind of thinking and tradition of science that creates a certain "style" of thinking, and a certain way of approaching problems.
May I ask what you've been reading that relates to this idea? Being someone who has taken an interest in Husserl I see something familiar in what you are saying and the use of the term "hermeneutics" also suggests something in the area of a phenomenological approach?
Never heard of heuristics until you mentioned it. Had to look it up.
Very little familiarity with Husserl or phenomenology.
Have tons of reservations about modernity, Enlightenment rationality, Enlightenment progress, etc. Fascinated by and drawn to postmodern theory. I probably picked up a copy of "Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction", by Stephen Gaukroger, to get thinking to juxtapose with my anti-modernist inclinations. I'm not saying that Gaukroger hits every nail on the head, but his characterization of objectivity is the best I have encountered.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023