As I had posted earlier, I take objectivity [philosophical] to the following;Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:58 pm Thank you for the clarifications @Veritas Aequitas. I certainly understand where you are coming from, but the definition you use for the term "objective" is muddy and it leads to unnecessarily vague conclusions. It's also not very useful, because by your definition, there is no true objectivity, as such the best we can get is consensus based on inter-subjectivity, and so we just lazily call that objectivity... That's not how it works.
My definition is scientific knowledge and truth are recognized within 'objectivity' thus objective; in this sense how can you say my definition of 'objectivity' via intersubjective consensus is not useful when scientific objective is the most productive means [net pros over cons] for the welfare and progress of humanity to date?In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence. Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1]
Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
There is no question of an absolutely true objectivity.
The only true objective is true within the requirements of the specific FSK and not true to an absolute external thing-in-itself which is an illusion that is conjured by the subject and reified as real.
The significant criteria of objectivity, e.g. scientific objectivity is not accuracy but rather it compliance with the conditions of the scientific FSK, i.e. empirically verifiable, testable, repeatability, intersubjective consensus by peers, [peer review].Here's the problem: Your definition of objectivity is linked to accuracy. You believe (and you're certainly not alone in this) that we can only know something objectively if we understand it truly accurately. But given how limiting our sense-experience is, it would be foolish to think that we can understand anything as it truly is. Therefore, the best we can do is come up with some form of inter-subjective agreement on the objective nature of a thing. This standard is then deemed sufficient to be called "objective". Because this standard is (philosophically) fairly low, it can also be applied to inherently subjective fields such as aesthetics and morality. As such, it makes perfect sense that there are moral facts.
However, this approach is essentially a *cheat*. In actuality, we can't magically go from inter-subjectivity to objectivity.
But the nice thing is that we don't have to. That's because objectivity is not linked to accuracy. To be objective simply means to state a concept which refers to an external object, absent of a subjective viewpoint.
There cannot a question of accuracy in relation to an external thing in itself because there is no real thing-in-itself without any entanglement to the subjects.
When YOU say the earth is a sphere or an oblate ellipsoid, that is not directly objective but rather it is your subjective opinions or beliefs based on faith.So for example, if I say that the earth is a sphere, my statement is objective, because it refers to an object -- the earth -- as it is. But it's not entirely accurate, because the earth is not actually perfectly round. By measuring the shape of the earth, we can improve of our concept of its shape. So for example, if I say that the earth is an oblate ellipsoid, my statement is objectively more accurate than the previous one, because it describes the measured shape of the earth more accurately. However, both statements were already objective -- what changed was the accuracy, i.e. how well they map to observable, measurable reality.
Here's the kicker: if I were to say that the earth is flat, this statement would still be objective. Now, it does not map well to observable reality, so it's inaccurate to such a degree that we can consider it straight-out false. But it's perfectly objective nonetheless.
The above statements only qualify to objectivity and its degrees when specific reference is made implicitly or explicitly to 'because the astronomy FSK confirmed [said] so'.
Here you will encounter Meno's paradox.So that's what it means for something to be objective. It's not hard to derive at all. The challenge lies in comparing objective concepts to reality and determining their accuracy. But conceiving of objective concepts is completely trivial.
How do you know what is the really real thing out there so that you can made comparison with it.
There is no issue with subjective feelings about some thing, e.g. the shape of the Earth is pleasing.Subjective concepts are an entirely different beast. For example, if I say that the shape of the earth is pleasing, this would not refer to the actual shape of the earth, but rather my perception of it. So how do you know whether my statement is "accurate"? Well, you examine me. That's to say, you examine my biology, my neurology, my history, etc. in an attempt to determine if I actually am experiencing pleasure by contemplating the shape of the earth. In other words, you reference the subject, not the object.
This is all there is to it -- objective is that which references the object, subjective is that which references the subject (the observer). That's why it simply does not matter how many subjects you measure and how accurately you do it. You'll never, ever get an "object" out of it.
There is another aspect to subjectivity which is subject to the FSK that is relied upon where the FSK are fundamentally based on intersubjective consensus.
For example the Abrahamic theistic FSK may insist the Earth has a flat shape.
Since this proposition is conditioned upon a FSK with consensus, it qualify to be objective, but how credible is such claim of objectivity.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible at present thus has the highest level of credibility and objective, so, it will be the standard.
If we rate the scientific FSK with say a standard of 100, we can easily rate the theistic FSK at say 10/100.
But I have argued whatever is objective is grounded on inter-subjectivity, there is no other way; you cannot prove there is an absolute real external thing-in-itself out there.To briefly touch upon an example you made regarding (crypto) currencies: our inter-subjective evaluation of a currency is exactly that: inter-subjective. That's why the value of a currency constantly fluctuates, as it's dependent upon our collective subjective value of it. If Elon Musk tweets about Doge Coin, he manipulates the people's perception of that particular currency (he in no way changes the protocol of that crypto currency itself!).
The point with crypto currency is its FSK are not credible in comparison to say the US Dollar, thus there is a variation of objectivity and trustworthiness; but such objectivity [independent of any individual's judgment] is fundamentally intersubjective.
There is no rebranding of objective as I had referenced this definition which is generally accepted within the philosophical community;The problem with attempting to re-brand inter-subjectivity with objectivity is that you all of a sudden don't know what to call that which is actually objective. In the case of crypto currencies, they're based upon a software protocol distributed among millions of hardware devices. These are actual objects. If our evaluation of a currency itself is already objective, then is the actual software and hardware it's built upon "merely" objective also? So there is no distinction between the collective evaluation of a thing and the thing itself?
So hopefully you see that this approach just isn't very useful. It's confusing because it's based on an unnecessary miscategorization. As such it leads to the idea that there are moral (and aesthetical) objective facts, when all it really refers to are inter-subjective patterns and overlaps, based on similarities in biology and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Show me where is the mass rejection of this definition?
It is the same with 'subjectivity' [philosophy].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
You cannot deny the definition of objectivity [philosophy] is not useful, given that scientific knowledge as objective, thus repeatable and consistent, has been very useful in contributing the progress and welfare of humanity.
On the other hand your idea of objectivity, i.e. refer to a real external thing-in-itself independent of the subject has brought terrible sufferings and evil throughout the history of mankind in the idea of God as an independent thing in itself that is ABSOLUTELY independent of all subjects.
Are you aware the tracking and mirroring of the referent out there is old fashioned?
Note,
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#: