OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE!

[Veritas Aequitas]

OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE

The definition of what is Philosophical Objectivity;

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

What is critical with the above definition is "a sentient subject".
Thus Objectivity is possible where there is more than "a sentient subject" and justified to be so.

What is pertinent for philosophy is Philosophical Objectivity which has practical utility for humanity.
See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

As such a proposition can have objectivity if more than one person [preferably sufficient number of persons] derived a conclusion from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] after filtering out as much biasness as possible.

Your personal bollocks. All you are saying is that any objective statements are objective only as they relate to your POV. In other words you are saying that OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE.

Yes! OBJECTIVITY IS always RELATIVE [not to MY POV but] to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely absolute independent by itself without a FSK.
Can you counter this?
Give me an example of objectivity that is absolutely absolute and independent and without any reference to a FSK?

Note the example of scientific knowledge which is accepted as the most objective and credible knowledge at present. The objectivity of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon the requirements of its FSK and consensus [intersubjective] of the relevant members.

So a credible Framework and System of Knowledge will remove all personal interests and bias to ensure the concluded knowledge is objective.
What is objectivity in this case is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a credible FSK.

For a moral statement to be objective, it must also be supported by objective scientific knowledge and be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

All scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not influenced by my or any individual scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.
All objective scientific facts are relative to the scientific framework constructed and sustained by a community scientists who are human.
There were no Objective-Scientific-Facts prior to Bacon [dcd 1292].

The objective fact that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA [do you deny this?] is not influenced by my or any other person's personal feelings or opinions.
But this objective political fact is relative to the political framework and that of the USA and conditioned by the underlying political feelings, opinions, judgment, biasness of those who voted for Biden.

Some Americans may dispute and will not accept it as an objective fact at all citing cheatings, etc.

However, in general you cannot deny "Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA" is an objective political fact, and you cannot deny its objectivity is RELATIVE as conditioned upon a framework that is conditioned upon the collectively feelings and opinions of human who voted for Biden.

As such there are also objective moral principles that are leveraged upon a moral framework conditioned by humans. However there are no objective moral facts from an independent God and floating around independently of humans.

So what could make ANYTHING objective is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge, e.g. scientific, MORAL, political, legal, social, economics, medical, etc.
So, OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE.

To insist objectivity can exists as real and independent [without] of any framework and system of knowledge [FSK] is delusional!

Any counter points to the above?

[jason_m]

I don't think there is an exception:

- Objectivity depends on the axioms of logic.
- We now know because of quantum physics that the rules of logic depend on one's logical framework. i.e., "Quantum Logic" vs. "Classical Logic."
- Therefore, objectivity seems relative, as we could have lived in a "quantum" instead of classical world, and we would then have different rules of logic.

OTOH,

Aren't there still "facts" that apply to every level of the physical universe? A quantum fact is still a fact just like a fact of history. Facts are also the basis of objectivity.

For, how could there be a universe without facts? Maybe what happens in the past could change or the rules of the universe could randomly change, thereby changing what counts as a "fact?"

Therefore, maybe it holds up, but it probably does not...

(But really, look how relative anything really is philosophically. One could come up with this argument, and then: there is a good argument the other way, and so on, ad infinitum... Maybe there is no objective truth in philosophy - it is just abstract speculation, and that's it...)

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think there is an exception:

- Objectivity depends on the axioms of logic.
- We now know because of quantum physics that the rules of logic depend on one's logical framework. i.e., "Quantum Logic" vs. "Classical Logic."
- Therefore, objectivity seems relative, as we could have lived in a "quantum" instead of classical world, and we would then have different rules of logic.

OTOH,

Aren't there still "facts" that apply to every level of the physical universe? A quantum fact is still a fact just like a fact of history. Facts are also the basis of objectivity.

For, how could there be a universe without facts? Maybe what happens in the past could change or the rules of the universe could randomly change, thereby changing what counts as a "fact?"

Therefore, maybe it holds up, but it probably does not...

(But really, look how relative anything really is philosophically. One could come up with this argument, and then: there is a good argument the other way, and so on, ad infinitum... Maybe there is no objective truth in philosophy - it is just abstract speculation, and that's it...)

OBJECTIVITY is RELATIVE, i.e. relative to a Framework and System of Knowledge which could be Quantum, Einsteinian, Classical Physics, biology, legal, economic, history, political, etc.
Objectivity is also relative to logic [necessary] but that is secondary because all system of knowledge use some kind of logic [sound or crude logic].

Thus there is no objectivity if it is not related to any Framework System of Knowledge [FSK] represented by some community. There are thus degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the FSK.

As such what are personal opinions [views, conjecture, guesses and the likes] of an individual or a few individuals without conditioned upon any FSK [model] can not be objective.

[Skepdick]

Thus there is no objectivity if it is not related to any Framework System of Knowledge [FSK] represented by some community. There are thus degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the FSK.

You continue to ignore the question (over and over).

What FSK do we need to objectively measure/rate/grade the credibility of other FSKs?

[Iwannaplato]

Yes! OBJECTIVITY IS always RELATIVE [not to MY POV but] to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely absolute independent by itself without a FSK.
Can you counter this?
Give me an example of objectivity that is absolutely absolute and independent and without any reference to a FSK?

I think the language here is odd. But perhaps you could give an example of any objectivity, relative or not.

I think that is likely the wrong noun. Words like, truth, assertion, claim, fact, come to mind.

IOW
Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice.

So, you want us to give you an example of a lack of bias that is not relative? An absence that is not relative?
I don't think that makes any sense. I suspect you mean something like a conclusion, fact, claim, assertion that is objective is always objective in relation to a FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus there is no objectivity if it is not related to any Framework System of Knowledge [FSK] represented by some community. There are thus degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the FSK.

You continue to ignore the question (over and over).

What FSK do we need to objectively measure/rate/grade the credibility of other FSKs?

If you have sufficient intelligence, you would have come up with the answer yourself!

The Principle is,
there is no objectivity if it is not related to any Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

For example, to sustain the objectivity and credibility of Physics, there must be a FSK of Physics, and so on.

Therefore in principle, the objectivity of the credibility of any FSK must be based on a specific FSK that assess objectivity of a FSK.
That is the answer to your question.
We can call that FSK of Credibility-of-FSK [COF].

As to the details of the FSK of COF, that is a different question.
I have already provided details on how a FSK of COF work earlier.

Do you have any idea what is the best method to rate 'something' as most optimal over all others considered?
In this, we use various criteria [positive and negative] and assigned weightages to 'observed' evidences, then determine the resultant.

One criteria that carry the highest weightage [say 80%] would be;
-Provide possible utilities that contribute the overall well-being of humanity at present and potentially in the future.

Science [in General] despites its inherent negatives, scores significantly very high [90/100] on this criteria relative to other FSKs. This score alone will enable science to dominate over all other fields of knowledge in terms of credibility and trustworthy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes! OBJECTIVITY IS always RELATIVE [not to MY POV but] to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely absolute independent by itself without a FSK.
Can you counter this?
Give me an example of objectivity that is absolutely absolute and independent and without any reference to a FSK?

I think the language here is odd. But perhaps you could give an example of any objectivity, relative or not.

I think that is likely the wrong noun. Words like, truth, assertion, claim, fact, come to mind.

IOW
Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice.

So, you want us to give you an example of a lack of bias that is not relative? An absence that is not relative?
I don't think that makes any sense. I suspect you mean something like a conclusion, fact, claim, assertion that is objective is always objective in relation to a FSK.

I have already given a clue re the degree of objectivity from different FSK.

Note;

• 1. Water is H2O [scientific FSK]
  2. Biden is 46th President of the USA [ political FSK]
  3. X is a murderer [Legal FSK].
  4. Harnaaz Sandhu is Miss Universe 2021 [Beauty Contest FSK]
  5. Emma Raducanu is 2021 US Open Tennis Champion [Tennis FSK]
  6. and so on ...

The above facts are all objective. [aligned with truth, fact, reality, exists, etc.]
But surely you can detect there is some degrees of difference in their objectivity.
3. 'X is a murderer' is dependent on the subjective views of a group of jury or judges and many supposedly 'murderer' were wrongly convicted.
4. Harnaaz Sandhu is Miss Universe 2021 is a fact and is objective, but it is based on a group of judges in a beauty contests.
5. Olympic Gold medalists are facts but many results are dependent on judgments of a group of humans which could go any way in very marginal situations.

When we compare to the so-called objectivity of 3 and 4, there is a difference of credibility as compared to 1. Water is H2O [scientific FSK].

The question is how to rate the objectivity of each FSK. I have given some details in my earlier post.

[Skepdick]

Science [in General] despites its inherent negatives, scores significantly very high [90/100] on this criteria relative to other FSKs. This score alone will enable science to dominate over all other fields of knowledge in terms of credibility and trustworthy.

Yes, moron.

I am asking you to provide us with the FSK in which you have scored the scientific FSK!

[promethean75]

Oh snap skep just hit you with a Feyerabend/Kuhn combo, bro.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science [in General] despites its inherent negatives, scores significantly very high [90/100] on this criteria relative to other FSKs. This score alone will enable science to dominate over all other fields of knowledge in terms of credibility and trustworthy.

Yes, moron.

I am asking you to provide us with the FSK in which you have scored the scientific FSK!

You keep making noises and ignorant of the rating process I mentioned. You are the moron in asking for the above.

I have provided you the principles of that FSK.
Besides in the past I have already mentioned the criteria how the scientific FSK is rated.
I am not interested in giving you personal tuition on the details.

I suggest you do more reading on the actual and on going success, credibility and trustworthiness of Science which is so obvious from the prevalent application of scientific theories and truths in all critical aspects of human life.

You are indeed the moron.

[Skepdick]

I have provided you the principles of that FSK.

No, you haven't. Quit lying.

Show me your scoring system! What are those 90 points comprised of.

Science [in General] despites its inherent negatives, scores significantly very high [90/100] on this criteria relative to other FSKs. This score alone will enable science to dominate over all other fields of knowledge in terms of credibility and trustworthy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have provided you the principles of that FSK.

No, you haven't. Quit lying.

Show me your scoring system! What are those 90 points comprised of.

Science [in General] despites its inherent negatives, scores significantly very high [90/100] on this criteria relative to other FSKs. This score alone will enable science to dominate over all other fields of knowledge in terms of credibility and trustworthy.

I am not going to give you detailed tutoring on this matter, you are not worthy of my time.

Note this as one clue amongst others;
https://www.productplan.com/glossary/weighted-scoring/

As I had suggested, you should do more research and reading [.. I have done that] on the trustworthiness and credibility of scientific theories, facts, truths and their application [net-positive*] to almost every aspects of human life via technology, intellectual, philosophy, etc., to clear your ignorance.
* obviously this is after the trade off between their costs and benefits.

[Age]

OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE

Of course it is.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

[Skepdick]

I am not going to give you detailed tutoring on this matter, you are not worthy of my time.

Quit stalling you time-wasting c.u.n.t.

As I had suggested, you should do more research and reading

Yes! I want to do more research and reading! That is PRECISELY why I am asking you to show me your scoring system.

So I can read it!

[promethean75]

We'll need an FSK to check the FSK with, and for that, we'll need an FSK.

(that better not stand for 'fuck Soren Kierkegaard', btw.)