Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 7:34 am
The expression '
one's perception' doesn't usually mean '
one person's perception'. And 'bias caused by the mind of
a sentient being' usually refers to bias caused by the mind of
sentient beings.
In other words, subjectivity doesn't morph into objectivity at some unspecified number or proportion of 'subjects'. An opinion, whether held by just me, or some, many or all of us, remains an opinion.
In practical terms subjectivity morphs into objectivity (or at least being called objectivity) when there is some kind of consensus in some subgroup of subjects who call it that.
A general reaction I have to this topic is that it is not neat. We can try to nail it down, but in lived terms, it is messy.
For example, the fact that every human being used to believe in gods didn't make it a fact that there are gods. So, by exactly the same argument, the fact that everyone (maybe) now believes water is H2O doesn't make it a fact that water is H2O.
And I think this sentence is stronger, though still problematic, if you leave out 'fact' given that words ambiguity. '...doesnt make water H20.'
What we call objectivity does not reduce to consensus opinion. That's not how we use the word.
First note the implicit potential contradiction.
That's not how we use the word means that we are determining the objective meaning of 'objectivity' through consensus. I undertand that the meaning of words is perhaps not the same as features of reality (though even that gets gnarly).
Objectivity in practical terms for most groups usually entails some kind of expert consensus following a rigorous process. Rigor is defined in different ways by different people. And it is an evaluation. Replication is often part of the rigor in science. Team A came up with result X and then other teams replicted the experiments and lo, found the same or close enough results. Fine. And this certainly works a lot. It also fails even when replication succeeds.
Here on earth we are dealing with the subjective in paradigmantic biases - so a majority of experts who might end up calling something objective may share the same bias - corporate and power interest control of research funding and even experts - through a wide variety of processes affecting scientists, labs, universities, publication, and then the biases we all share as time bound, locally physical, mammalian primates with our main cognitive centers coming out of our motor cortexes - again, collective biases or intersubjective biases.
We might like to separate out universality/consensus from objectivity, but here on earth, partially blind as we all are, this isn't neat.
This doesn't mean the distinction between objective and subjective is meaningless, though I often wonder if it was better to drop objectivity as a concept. Since, for example, in science revision is considered good to always be open to, why not just present justifications and more or less treat everything as working hypotheses on some level.
This does not mean that all hypostheses are equal. Not does it mean we can't strive to eliminate biases as much as possible.
This doesn't mean that I am on the same team a VA. He likes that word objectivity. You like that word objectivity. I think it's problematic and on some level does break down to a tool of power.
What we have are all these conclusions out there. We all deal with our own conclusions and those of others. These have wide varieties of justification, both in quality or seeming quality and type.
Why not transparancy regarding justification - which is SORT OF the case or goal in science (but take a look at pharmaceutical company behavior, which we are often told is science ((period)) and trasnparancy is lacking. And the moment money issues are invovled - as they generally are - and transparancy is always at risk (of not being objective))).
I am not sure the fighting over who gets to use the word objectivity really helps.
And even in science, I am not sure it really happens. Lab c draws a conclusion. Other labs check the process. I don't think anyone says 'Now we can call it objective,' even if you cornered the scientists and made them check off either subjective or objective conclusion, they would choose the latter. But really once it's looking good to the experts, then if there are any practical applications, industry and/or governments move in. If it affects models it gets added to or modifies models.
We don't have to have some discrete moment where we decide to put conclusion X in the objective set. Before it was subjective (merely) now we put it in box 2.
We know that things put in box 2 have turned out to be wrong. At least in science. So getting labeled objective (here on earth, in real time, in real lives) is no guarantee. It's a hey, this is looking really solid so far judgment.
It may be great, but we do not have that view from nowhere.
I think these terms reflect an urge to have things settled neatly. There, finished, good. It is this and not that. Period. A very human urge.
Often in philosophy and life it is as if we can see that, well, sure those things are objective and those are objective. But actually we are these primates on the ground.