Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:36 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:21 am
objective
/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
Sorry, this is an appeal to authority. I am asking you for something which meets the scientific bar and methodology.
1 The use of a dictionary definition is not an appeal to authority. A dictionary describes but does not prescribe how a word is used. You asked me to explain how I use the word 'objective', and I'm showing how I use it. I'm not saying this is how the word must be used.
2 So now you're saying that you use the word 'objective' in the way scientists use it, which you claim is different from the explanation I quoted from the dictionary. Perhaps we're making progress.
Testability, reproducibility etc. For that definition is most definitely NOT how people in my field use it, therefore I can only conclude that the dictionary is biased.
So now you're claiming two things:
1 That scientists include testability and reproducibilty in their definition and use of the word 'objective'.
2 That scientists don't include the exclusion of 'personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts' in their definition and use of the word 'objective'.
Do you have any evidence to support your second claim? If not, it's unjustified.
Also, I heed caution of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Language affects the way you think, so blindly accepting other people's language robs you of your faculties to think for yourself.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is 'that the structure of a language determines a native speaker's perception and categorization of experience'. But this includes the way scientists perceive and categorize experience, so the hypothesis has no discriminatory relevance here.
I don’t think I can explain my meaning to you in a language you speak. How well do you speak Mathematics?
Please explain your use of the word 'objective' mathematically, and I'll tell you if I do or don't understand it. (I speak a little mathematics.) But the sign 'objective' is not a mathematical symbol, and nor are the signs 'testability' and 'reproducibility'. So I look forward to your explanation.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:21 am
Now, either explain how you use the word 'objective' in a way that doesn't assume that there are facts, or stop claiming that my use of the word is unjustified. Simples.
Peter, I use that word EXACTLY like you use the word. However!
I use EVERY word exactly as you claimed. "We use words however we use words".
1 I don't understand your use of the sentence adverbial 'however' here. It usually modifies a following clause, to indicate something like the conjunction 'But...'. So are you saying that you use the words 'fact' and 'objective' exactly as I do, but...? The grammar is unclear.
2 If there's no condition implied, you're saying here that you do use the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - along with every other word - exactly as I do. But above you say that you, along with other scientists, don't use at least the word 'objective' as I do. Here are your words: 'For that definition is most definitely NOT how people in my field use it, therefore I can only conclude that the dictionary is biased'.
Perhaps you can clear up this seeming contradiction, and I apologise if I've misunderstood.
I use the word 'objective' however I use the word objective. I use the word 'objective" approximately how I would use the word "consistent" to describe logic. Something is objectively true if it agrees with experiment.
So now you're adding to your definition of 'objective', so that it includes the following: testability, reproducibility, consistency, and agreement with experiment. Is that a fair description, or have I got any of it wrong? If not, two questions spring to mind.
1 Why is the exclusion of 'personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts' not intrinsic to the above definition of 'objective''?
2 (Back to the OP.) How does your definition of 'objective' apply to moral values and judgements?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:41 pm
Pay attention this time. The criteria for what we call 'correctness' and 'incorrectness' are contextual and dependent on the relevant rules or conventions of the activity.
This is no good, Peter. What rules allow us to determine what context we are in?
Well, for example, you cite the scientific context, in which words have certain uses. The context, as it were, contains its own rules. Your question is like asking: what rules do we follow to decide whether or not we're playing a game of chess? It's a stupid question.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:41 pm
So, for example, if the word 'red' is conventionally used to refer to a certain colour, then to use the word 'red' to refer to a colour that is conventionally called 'blue' is incorrect or erroneous. And that's how language works.
Peter, you are telling me that if I don't use words like they are DESCRIBED in the dictionary then I am making an 'error'?
So you are PRESCRIBING that an error is 'unconventional use of words'?
That is - you are saying that I am not allowed to call 'blue' saphire, or that I am not allowed to call 'red' scarlet or rouge.
Or that I am not allowed to simply decide to swap the names for 'blue' and 'red'?
You are telling me that I am not allowed to use language however I NEED to use language within my immediate community?
No, and you keep repeating this canard. You claim that, in a scientific context, to use the word 'objective' to mean 'excluding personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts' is an error, because that's not how scientists use it. I've explained time and time again, that rules are contextual and conventional, so that what's correct, incorrect or erroneous can only ever be within a discursive context. And we can, that's WE CAN break the rules at any time. Please stop misrepresenting my argument, because it's dishonest.
You said you weren't a linguistic prescriptivist. What is going on? Were you lying, or did you not understand what the word 'prescriptivism' means?
So, no, Peter. That's not an error. It's just a choice.
I CHOOSE to use the word 'red' to mean 'blue'. I CHOOSE to use the word 'blue' to mean 'red'.
Please explain to me why my choice is an 'error'.
To recap, you have yet to show the following.
1 Why my use, and a dictionary definition, of the word 'objective' are incoherent.
2 Why my (standard) account of deductive validity and soundness is faulty.
3 How a moral assertion makes a claim that is (by your definition of objectivity) testable, reproducible, consistent and in agreement with experiment - and is therefore objective.
Please address and justify these claims directly. If you don't or can't, I'm done with wasting any more time on you.