Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:39 am
What makes you think scientific facts are not "distorted" by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.
Are you banking on me thinking that
beliefs,
knowledge, etc. when it comes to science wouldn't be subjective/wouldn't be distorted by personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations?
Beliefs, knowledge, etc. are subjective, period. Anything mental in nature is subjective. And that's on the definition you're preferring. Because anything mental is a factor of personal feelings and/or prejudices and/or interpretations. The difference when it comes to science--a difference between it and morality, is that scientific knowledge is
about objective stuff, in the sense that the goal is to "match" objective stuff. Morality
can't match objective stuff, because there are no objective moral maxims to match.
I am confident you are lacking in the competence to deal with the term 'subjectivity' as dealing with subjects in its more refined sense.
I agree with 'anything mental in nature is subjective' or whatever [mental + physical] it related to the 'subject' is subjective.
Note whatever is "objective stuff" is always connected to the mental.
The only way you can conclude the "objective stuff" is independent of mind is to
assume it is independent of mind and objective.
Regardless of how you look at it, the mental [subjectivity] is always involved, there is no escape from subjectivity [the subject].
Prove to me otherwise.
You got it wrong, science do not deal directly with objective stuff at all.
Classical science [not QM] merely ASSUMES there are "objective stuff" out there.
If I were to do any classical science I will have to ASSUME there are objective stuff out there in my thesis.
The essence of science is focused on observations i.e. mental stuffs, and from there infer via its
FSK that its conclusion is credible.
What is critical for science is its FSK which is constructed by subjects' beliefs.
The ultimate consideration of scientific truths as objective is its
peers review and consensus by the majority of the specific scientists.
Peers review is always conditioned upon a consensus of a group of specific qualified scientists i.e. subjects, thus intersubjective.
Thus what is 'objective stuff' in correspondence to what is
assumed is only objective based on intersubjective consensus.
The critical tests for the credibility of scientific truths is its testability and repeatability.
Thus whatever is objective stuff in science is always connected with subjects, i.e. mental.
I have argued, the moral FSK in justifying their moral facts adopts the same processes as the scientific FSK.
The point is the scientific FSK has its constitutions [all necessary requirements] to ensure as much personal bias are filtered out, thus maintaining objectivity
The definition of "objectivity" isn't that "as much personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations are filtered out as can be" (which we'd know how, exactly? The definition you gave is that objectivity denotes something
without of personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations.
Objectivity as in science has control processes to filter out as much personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations as can be.
As I had stated, its feature of testability and repeatability ensure that.
Btw, I am not insisting science is perfect, i.e. a GOD of knowledge.
There are loads of failure from science, but it has features to be self-corrective.
Note,
b]Clinical psychology,[/b] in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.
What is so difficult in measuring and being objective about meeting basic biological needs and psychological. Social needs are merely the extra merits for well being.
Biological basic needs can be measured via physical examinations and blood-tests to determine the well-being of the person.
The psychological and mental well being can be assessed by psychologist and psychiatry.
The point is that
what counts as well-being is subjective there, as it is everywhere. What counts as subjective isn't without "distortion" from personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations, especially because what counts as well-being is ONLY personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.
Nope, what counts as
well-being, example meeting biological needs and various testing are not leveraged on personal feelings but based on the processes of the scientific FSK.
For example, if you have 4 limbs and there are no physical deformities and health issues with them, then this aspect of well-being could be rated at say 90/100.
If one do a thorough blood test and all the measurements are within normal range, that is 'good' well being in those aspects. There is no personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations involved.
Point is the term 'well-being' is a very loose term, but what I am focusing are the objective core elements that represent what is well-being.
I would exclude 'happiness' as a determinate of 'well-being' for one can still feel happy even if one is very sick.
On the moral side, if a person is not a malignant psychopath [can be diagnosed objectively] that would be a good well-being point in respect of 'no-killing-humans'. This is independent of any personal feelings, opinions and beliefs.
Note again;
What is Philosophical Objectivity.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416