Why is Physics 'More Objective' than Astrology?

[Iwannaplato]

Objective information is verified by some sort of inspection of a phenomenon or state off affairs or something like that.

We verify information or assertions with the range of methodologies that we come up with information and assertions.

What constitutes the division between objectivity and subjectivity is a separate issue from whether objective information is better than subjective info.

Could you go into that?

The latter relies entirely upon the context of the questions being asked, the first informs what questions can even be asked.

And this?

Epistemology is about how we ask and answer questions, something that people all too often lose sight of when they try to analyse everything according to what it's made of without reference to what it does. All of VA's analysis is entirely bound in that narrow mistake as he performs his Procrustean manoeuvre to force fit objectivity into a framework of mere certainty and uncertainty.

I understand that objectivity and subjectivity, as terms, are intended to say something about process, when arriving at conclusions. But I don't think they are seperate realms. In the end I think that objectivity is intersubjectivity that has been evaluated as having some kind or rigor.

It's not popularity to most people about most things, though in many instances we will consider a bunch of people's opinions objective and run like a mad person, where we wouldn't for one.

The people who bandy about the word objectivity tend to have more specific types of intersubjective processes in mind.

[FlashDangerpants]

Objective information is verified by some sort of inspection of a phenomenon or state off affairs or something like that.

We verify information or assertions with the range of methodologies that we come up with information and assertions.

Uhm, ok. The thing is that one of those methodologies involves looking at a phenomenon/object/thing/situation/etc, and properties that inhere to that phenomenon/thing/situation. This is the one we call objectivity. Those other methodologies aren't. I'm not saying that they are invalid, I'm not saying they are inferior, but I am saying there is a clear difference of type specified in the terms I have written and the location of the properties to be observed when resolving questions.

If there is an objective answer to a question, then there is either one or a range of correct answers, which can be validated by observation. Proposed alternativew answers that fall outside that range are objectively untrue. THAT is the role that objectivity and subjectivity plays in our question answering language games.

What constitutes the division between objectivity and subjectivity is a separate issue from whether objective information is better than subjective info.

Could you go into that?

The latter relies entirely upon the context of the questions being asked, the first informs what questions can even be asked.

And this?

We have all sorts of questions that we can want to answer, including for instance many that relate to hypothetical imperatives .... should I use a spoon or a knife to open my boiled egg? for instance and for which no objective answer could apply.

The way people are talking about objectivity here, there would have to be some correct answer to that question subject to a boiled egg FSK, or some official intersubjective response. But it's not that way, there is no objective question of the correct way to open a boiled egg, only subjective questions of preference.

There is no objective question about betterness of egg opening methodologies, and any propsed objective answer to such a question, aside from being false, also does not offer a epistemically superior slice of knowledge. Objective information is epistemically preferrable when we would like for some reason to know that alternative answers are incorrect.

Epistemology is about how we ask and answer questions, something that people all too often lose sight of when they try to analyse everything according to what it's made of without reference to what it does. All of VA's analysis is entirely bound in that narrow mistake as he performs his Procrustean manoeuvre to force fit objectivity into a framework of mere certainty and uncertainty.

I understand that objectivity and subjectivity, as terms, are intended to say something about process, when arriving at conclusions. But I don't think they are seperate realms. In the end I think that objectivity is intersubjectivity that has been evaluated as having some kind or rigor.

By rigor, are you saying that alternative answers are deemed to be wrong in some way? I hope so, but I would suggest that the answer I have given above explains what that usually entails.

It's not popularity to most people about most things, though in many instances we will consider a bunch of people's opinions objective and run like a mad person, where we wouldn't for one.

The people who bandy about the word objectivity tend to have more specific types of intersubjective processes in mind.

There's all sorts of situations in which we habitually use the term 'objective' in a more colloquial manner. Just like all those times where we use the word 'literally' to mean lots of something, or blatanatly something, but not literally that thing. If we are saying that all reasonable men agree that it is literally and objectively true that Mozart is better than Tchaikovsky we have made colloquial of the concepts of reason, literalness and objectivity. I'm not saying never to do that, merely to remember we do so when we do it.

[Skepdick]

Epistemology is about how we ask and answer questions, something that people all too often lose sight of when they try to analyse everything according to what it's made of without reference to what it does.

Between objectivity and subjectivity there is not a difference of magnitude, but of type.

Dumb philosopher is dumb.

Absolutely ALL propositions/assertion/claims/English statements can be re-stated in the form of a question + affirmative answer.

Earth is round.
Is Earth round? Yes.

Murder is wrong.
Is murder wrong? Yes.

Cake is delicious.
Is cake delicious? Yes.

Iago is a more complex or compelling villain than Richard III.
Is Iago is a more complex or compelling villain than Richard III? Yes.

In type theory this is called a decision-type.
Input is some question.
Output is one of "Yes" or "No"

Answering the question amounts to 1 Classical bit of information.

If all expressions can be re-formulated in this manner. What or where is this difference between 1 subjective bit and 1 objective bit of information?

[Iwannaplato]

Uhm, ok. The thing is that one of those methodologies involves looking at a phenomenon/object/thing/situation/etc, and properties that inhere to that phenomenon/thing/situation. This is the one we call objectivity. Those other methodologies aren't. I'm not saying that they are invalid, I'm not saying they are inferior, but I am saying there is a clear difference of type specified in the terms I have written and the location of the properties to be observed when resolving questions.

I'm not saying that we don't look at phenomena. But what do we look at phenomena via. The observations/sensings/perceivings will be part of methodologies.

If I want to check that a conclusion of reseach paper X or someone's hypothesis about granite are correct, I might be able to criticise their conclusions just by looking at their protocols. Hey, you were looking at copper not granite. But, even if you then go to the phenomenon, you don't just look at it - not that I'm clear you're saying that - in some kind of process.

IOW I don't think it's objective just because there is an empirical portion.

If there is an objective answer to a question, then there is either one or a range of correct answers, which can be validated by observation.

Proposed alternativew answers that fall outside that range are objectively untrue. THAT is the role that objectivity and subjectivity plays in our question answering language games.

But every observation and any process of evaluating those observations is either subjective or an agreement by a number of subjective observers. Which is why I prefer intersubjectivity.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look at things, though I think we can object to claims of objectivity in specific cases (if we are using objective, without observing the things the conclusions we are challenging are about. We need to look at the argument. We'd need to read the research paper. But we can challenge objectivity based on protocol errors or limitations. Perhaps the researchers didn't realise they weren't controlling variables well.

But when we do want to challenge a conclusion on empirical grounds we are going through our senses, our paradigmatic limitations and so on.

We do our best to minimize possible biases but our efforts will also be affected by our biases.

In the end it is intersubjective. If you are a scientist, generally, it is an intersubjective based on people considered experts. Their views and analyses are valued highly, others not so much. This is the kind of thing I mean when I talk about rigor in intersubjectivity.

The way people are talking about objectivity here, there would have to be some correct answer to that question subject to a boiled egg FSK, or some official intersubjective response.

To me there are different kinds of intersubjectivty. But what gets called objectivity is one kind of that.

There is no objective question about betterness of egg opening methodologies,

I'm arguing against the term itself. So my conclusion can't be there there is an obectiveness to this.

and any propsed objective answer to such a question, aside from being false, also does not offer a epistemically superior slice of knowledge. Objective information is epistemically preferrable when we would like for some reason to know that alternative answers are incorrect.

Or it turns out it wasn't preferrable in any given situation. But yes, in what gets called objective by most people, we are talking about conclusions that deal with specific experiences/observations one will have.

The egg situation conclusions will be affected by the preferences of the individuals.

By rigor, are you saying that alternative answers are deemed to be wrong in some way? I hope so, but I would suggest that the answer I have given above explains what that usually entails.

I'm thinking more that processes either meet rigor or don't. Different people have different ideas about what is the correct rigor.

I have my sense of that rigor.

VA uses the word objectivity, even though he has said it is intersubjectivity.
I think he doesn't want to let go of that word.
I don't really like that word. I think it's misleading.
So, it's not that I want to grant objectivity to more endeavors.
I want to lose that idea.

See my next post for examples.

[Skepdick]

So, it's not that I want to grant objectivity to more endeavors.
I want to lose that idea.

There really is no need to do such a silly thing. Maybe you want to lose the idea only in so far as idiot-philosophers like Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes derail all conversations into pointless diatribes over stupid questions like "Is murder subjectively wrong or objectively wrong?"

But now you have to erase an intuition about objectivity from the minds of 8 billion people, just to prevent the sort of malpractice folk like Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes promotes?!? Good luck!

It's so much easier to simply leverage people's common understanding of what "objectivity" is. And then fit moral questions into that framework.

Is "yes" the answer to "The Eiffel tower is 330 meters tall?". Yes.
Is "yes" the answer to "Is murder wrong?" Yes.

There. They are now semantically equivalent.

Either they are both subjective; or they are both objective. Do you want to subjectivize science or objectivize morality?

Pick a bullet and bite it.

[Iwannaplato]

Example 1: rogue waves. Individuals and crews on ships had for a long time experienced large individual waves - not parts of series - even in otherwise calm seas without strong winds. Scientists and others said these people were wrong, based on then current models and ideas about oceanography and perhaps fluid science. Much later in history cameras were put in bridges and suddenly, with film of waves out of nowhere breaching over the bow, it seemed possible. Later satellite images became stronger evidence and models and ideas had to be looked at again,.

OK. The individuals experiencing these things were told, essentially, they were being subjective. Their emotions and attitudes affected their individual and even group experiences. It went against what was 'known' in science, so it their experiences and interpretations of those experiences were deemed not objective.

Given that you mention above that to be objective one must go to the phenomenon, you might think, well they didn't go to the phenomenon, those scientists, so they messed up. Great.

But let's turn to now and take up ghosts. Individuals and groups have had and continue to have experiences they call experiences of ghosts. Experts in a varieity of fields say those people are being merely subjective. Perhaps the more thorough ones go to supposedly haunted places and using a variety of devices/approaches find nothing. Given this lack of evidence, and current models in a few sciences, they conclude that the objective conclusion is ghosts don't exist. A few more cautious might say that we lack enough evidence. But are these scientists, actually being more objective?

Did they go to the phenomenon? Could they?

Is it possible that the ghost experiences are in the position of the rogue wave experiencers, and like the rogue wave scenario advances in technology and/or paradigmatic shifts (perhaps with attendant funding) and/or different protocols need to arrive before they are actually being more objective than the experiencers?

If one thinks the scientists who ruled out the rogue waves were not objective because they didn't (and at that time, not so long ago, couldn't) go to the phenomenon, then perhaps those who rule out or dismiss the experiencers as subjective in this scenario are actually more subjective.

Of course at this stage non-experiencers may lack good reasons to take on the belief, but I think even your version of objectivity leads to positions that I'm guessing you might find problematic.

I think it's better to work with intersubjectivity as a concept.

I can imagine objectivity, as a term, being useful in discussions. A kind of placeholder or Platonic form one strives to manifest or a useful fiction.

But I can't see anything wrong with intersubjectivity being considered what is really going on in objectivity. Certain specific kinds for each person, group.

And given the fact that observations must come through our primate brains, brains that are time bound and localized, rather than some Godlike view from everywhere (all angles) and not fixed at one moment in time and not limited to our specific senses and then how we categorize the world, given the structure of our brains and what activities parts of the brain we use in reasoning used to do before they got appropriated for reasoning.

And, of course, none of this means that all methodologies are the same or we just have to throw up our hands and accept any conclusion. It's more that I think we need to face the fact that it boils down to intersubjectivities of some kind.

[FlashDangerpants]

By rigor, are you saying that alternative answers are deemed to be wrong in some way? I hope so, but I would suggest that the answer I have given above explains what that usually entails.

I'm thinking more that processes either meet rigor or don't. Different people have different ideas about what is the correct rigor.

I have my sense of that rigor.

VA uses the word objectivity, even though he has said it is intersubjectivity.
I think he doesn't want to let go of that word.
I don't really like that word. I think it's misleading.
So, it's not that I want to grant objectivity to more endeavors.
I want to lose that idea.

See my next post for examples.

I was originally addressing the question of whether VA's assertions that Objectivity is a matter of degrees across a continuum is accurate. Currently I think I've made a decent case that it is not.

I don't think we need to do away with the concept, I think it is quite useful as is, but it seems to me that you agree with me at least that this continuum thing is unsustainable.

I guess we'll see if these examples move the scales from my eyes.

[FlashDangerpants]

Example 1: rogue waves. Individuals and crews on ships had for a long time experienced large individual waves - not parts of series - even in otherwise calm seas without strong winds. Scientists and others said these people were wrong, based on then current models and ideas about oceanography and perhaps fluid science. Much later in history cameras were put in bridges and suddenly, with film of waves out of nowhere breaching over the bow, it seemed possible. Later satellite images became stronger evidence and models and ideas had to be looked at again,.

OK. The individuals experiencing these things were told, essentially, they were being subjective. Their emotions and attitudes affected their individual and even group experiences. It went against what was 'known' in science, so it their experiences and interpretations of those experiences were deemed not objective.

Given that you mention above that to be objective one must go to the phenomenon, you might think, well they didn't go to the phenomenon, those scientists, so they messed up. Great.

No. The objective measurement of some real world wave is just objective information. The tree does make the noise even if nobody is around to listen to it.

The fixable innacuracies of some present-day model of the expected size of waves is neither here nor there to the matter, as is the squabbling between some salty old sea dog and some white coated land lubber.

But let's turn to now and take up ghosts. Individuals and groups have had and continue to have experiences they call experiences of ghosts. Experts in a varieity of fields say those people are being merely subjective. Perhaps the more thorough ones go to supposedly haunted places and using a variety of devices/approaches find nothing. Given this lack of evidence, and current models in a few sciences, they conclude that the objective conclusion is ghosts don't exist. A few more cautious might say that we lack enough evidence. But are these scientists, actually being more objective?

Did they go to the phenomenon? Could they?

Is it possible that the ghost experiences are in the position of the rogue wave experiencers, and like the rogue wave scenario advances in technology and/or paradigmatic shifts (perhaps with attendant funding) and/or different protocols need to arrive before they are actually being more objective than the experiencers?

If one thinks the scientists who ruled out the rogue waves were not objective because they didn't (and at that time, not so long ago, couldn't) go to the phenomenon, then perhaps those who rule out or dismiss the experiencers as subjective in this scenario are actually more subjective.

Of course at this stage non-experiencers may lack good reasons to take on the belief, but I think even your version of objectivity leads to positions that I'm guessing you might find problematic.

I'm not super comfortable with this idea of people being subjective. People are asserting things and that information can be subjective or objective.

There is a truth to the matter of whether ghosts exist. Whether we have access to the information about that is neither here nor there to this. It makes no difference whether any human being ever has, does or even ever will know the objective truth, that's just the way it will go with some objective information. I have made no assertion that there cannot be some factual information that is simply moot because we have no way to find out about it, in fact I would have thought it was entirely obvious that there is an endless number of things which fall into exactly that category.

If somebody says that they have done the science and proven that ghosts don't exist, I would suggest that their credentials as a scientist are in doubt because detecting immaterial objects is not a scientific type of endeavour.

I think it's better to work with intersubjectivity as a concept.

I can imagine objectivity, as a term, being useful in discussions. A kind of placeholder or Platonic form one strives to manifest or a useful fiction.

But I can't see anything wrong with intersubjectivity being considered what is really going on in objectivity. Certain specific kinds for each person, group.

And given the fact that observations must come through our primate brains, brains that are time bound and localized, rather than some Godlike view from everywhere (all angles) and not fixed at one moment in time and not limited to our specific senses and then how we categorize the world, given the structure of our brains and what activities parts of the brain we use in reasoning used to do before they got appropriated for reasoning.

And, of course, none of this means that all methodologies are the same or we just have to throw up our hands and accept any conclusion. It's more that I think we need to face the fact that it boils down to intersubjectivities of some kind.

I think you are expelling the baby with the bathwater in this instance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One strives to be objective.

Strive all you want.

Without some a priori framework for self-evaluation you have absolutely no idea whether you are getting closer to; or further from objectivity.

The same sort of moral skepticism peddled by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes and Flash DangerDork can be weaponized against all pursuits.

Agree.
This is why I advocated the Framework and System of Realization [of reality] and Knowledge [FSRK] of which the FSRK is the most credible and objective, thus to be used as the Standard [guide] to compare all other FSRKs.

So, I proposed the moral FSRK which is of as near credibility and objectivity as possible to that of the scientific FSRK within the objectivity continuum [0 to 100].
In this case morality is objective as opposed to PH Moral Relativism and FDP moral skepticism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is a matter of degrees across a continuum.
You deny this?

yes

That is because your 'yes' is grounded on an illusion.

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. The FSRK sense which is most realistic and objectivity is on a continuum.
2. The philosophical realism's mind-independent sense which is illusory.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

My other relevant arguments to support my claim:
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA uses the word objectivity, even though he has said it is intersubjectivity.
I think he doesn't want to let go of that word.
I don't really like that word. I think it's misleading.
So, it's not that I want to grant objectivity to more endeavors.
I want to lose that idea.

How come you are so ignorant of what is going on within the philosophical community?

"Objectivity" is a very pervasive and contentious issue within the philosophical community. To get rid of the term objectivity for intersubjectivity is 'shocking', gut wrenching and triggering terror within for the ideological philosophical realists.

• The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Do you how much 'ding-dong' has been going on in the contentions surrounding the issue of what is objectivity since Western Philosophy emerged, especially whether 'Morality is Objective or not'.

To me, objectivity is fundamentally, realistically and practically be equivalent intersubjectivity; objectivity comes in varying degrees depending on the credibility and objectivity of an imperative FSRK it is based upon.

It is not me that is not letting go of the word 'objectivity' but rather it is the philosophical realists who dogmatically cling to it without compromise [due to an evolutionary default and instinct], it is effective for me to go along with the term "objectivity" so as to counter their illusory views.
I have no qualms dropping the term objectivity is necessary, but to PH and FDP, dropping the term 'objectivity' will trigger fears and terror from an existential crisis within them.

[Iwannaplato]

How come you are so ignorant of what is going on within the philosophical community?

"Objectivity" is a very pervasive and contentious issue within the philosophical community. To get rid of the term objectivity for intersubjectivity is 'shocking', gut wrenching and triggering terror within for the ideological philosophical realists.

• The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Do you how much 'ding-dong' has been going on in the contentions surrounding the issue of what is objectivity since Western Philosophy emerged, especially whether 'Morality is Objective or not'.

To me, objectivity is fundamentally, realistically and practically be equivalent intersubjectivity;

Which is what I said. Can you read?

It is not me that is not letting go of the word 'objectivity' but rather it is the philosophical realists who dogmatically cling to it

And yet you keep using it. Need I link to the millions of times you have said there are two types of objectivity and other times you use it?

I accurately said that the cling to the use of the term. And you do. YOu have not replaced it, in general, with intersubjectivity. Look at this thread for fucks sake.

Yes, realists amongst others like that term. But they believe it is not intersubjectivity. So, of course they cling to it. You believe it is intersubjectivity (and so do I - see my posts to flashdangerpants ) but you cling to objectivity on and on and on. Despite believing it is intersubjectivity, you keep using the word objectivity. That's what I meant by clinging. Obviously someone who believes objectivity, realists for example, is something other than intersubjectivity are going to use the term objectivity. It is central to their belief system.

I mean, seriously. Do I have to fucking tie your shoes?

[Skepdick]

I accurately said that the cling to the use of the term. And you do. YOu have not replaced it, in general, with intersubjectivity. Look at this thread for fucks sake.

The entire point of the exercise isn't to replace terms! It never has been.

The entire point of the exercise is to replace the understanding of terms.

Remove the philosophical understanding of "objectivity" as defined by uncompromising zealots and naive idealists.
Replace with the scientific notion of "objectivity" as defined by smart people with pragmatic sensibilities.

Obviously someone who believes objectivity, realists for example, is something other than intersubjectivity are going to use the term objectivity. It is central to their belief system.

We know! That's the root cause of the fucking problem. A delusional conception of "objectivity" leading to a pointless pursuit. And the entire need for anti-realism.

A counter-balance to a systemic problem. This whole game is about balancing a pencil on its tip.

And when the pencil goes too far the other way - we'll go through these shenanigans again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How come you are so ignorant of what is going on within the philosophical community?

"Objectivity" is a very pervasive and contentious issue within the philosophical community. To get rid of the term objectivity for intersubjectivity is 'shocking', gut wrenching and triggering terror within for the ideological philosophical realists.

• The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Do you how much 'ding-dong' has been going on in the contentions surrounding the issue of what is objectivity since Western Philosophy emerged, especially whether 'Morality is Objective or not'.

To me, objectivity is fundamentally, realistically and practically be equivalent intersubjectivity;

Which is what I said. Can you read?

It is not me that is not letting go of the word 'objectivity' but rather it is the philosophical realists who dogmatically cling to it

And yet you keep using it. Need I link to the millions of times you have said there are two types of objectivity and other times you use it?

I accurately said that the cling to the use of the term. And you do. YOu have not replaced it, in general, with intersubjectivity. Look at this thread for fucks sake.

Yes, realists amongst others like that term. But they believe it is not intersubjectivity. So, of course they cling to it. You believe it is intersubjectivity (and so do I - see my posts to flashdangerpants ) but you cling to objectivity on and on and on. Despite believing it is intersubjectivity, you keep using the word objectivity. That's what I meant by clinging. Obviously someone who believes objectivity, realists for example, is something other than intersubjectivity are going to use the term objectivity. It is central to their belief system.

I mean, seriously. Do I have to fucking tie your shoes?

I know you have mixed views but I had focused on this;

VA uses the word objectivity, even though he has said it is intersubjectivity.
I think he doesn't want to let go of that word.
I don't really like that word. I think it's misleading.
So, it's not that I want to grant objectivity to more endeavors.
I want to lose that idea.

You deny you said the above as your primary view?

I argued against your intent on why we should not 'lose that idea' but need to keep the term 'objectivity' as explained but at the same time promote the term 'intersubjectivity' as synonym in the FSRK sense.

Also note Skepdic's response above.

Don't fuck around when you are wrong and infected with Aids.

[FlashDangerpants]

Objectivity is a matter of degrees across a continuum.
You deny this?

yes

That is because your 'yes' is grounded on an illusion.

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable, and because you conclude that it isn't, you feel justified in summoning some easily attainable but very low quality alternative product. This a great misjudgment on your part.

I think IWP is making a similar mistake.