Why is Physics 'More Objective' than Astrology?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes asked,
Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain

Also, the natural science objectivity that VA commends can have no other source than its capacity to explain the way(s) reality actually is - how ever provisional and revisable such explanations are.
Without this capacity, the notion of degrees of objectivity is incoherent. Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain.

'My fundamental principle of reality is this;
whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK* is the most objective.'
The above objectivity is in varying degrees within a continuum, i.e. 0.00 to 100.00.

Also,
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The FSRK sense of Objectivity [most realistic]
2. The realists' [PH] absolute mind-independent sense of objectivity - grounded on illusions.

We can jettison PH's sense of objectivity in this case since that will only lead to illusions.

To measure objectivity, it is more realistic, optimal and pragmatic to rely on 1 above, i.e. FSRK based objectivity.

According to my principle above, science-physics is conditioned upon the science-physics FSRK while astrology the astrology-FSRK.

Since the scientific FSRK* [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it follows the astrology-FSRK must be less objective than the science-physics FSRK.
*Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

I won't go into the details, but it is undeniable, if one is a rational person and critical thinker, it is obvious why the scientific FSRK [at its best], thus the science-physics' objective [say* at 90/100] is more objective than pseudo-science-astrology's degree of objective [say 10/100].
* the precise number is not critical at this stage, but rather the above reflect the estimated big relative difference based on a rational calculated guess.

So, "physics is 'more objective' than astrology" QED.


Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Note 1.
This OP has relevance to morality.
PH claims there is no objective morality.
I claim there is objective morality in the sense, like 'Physics is more objective than astrology', i.e. when dealt within an FSRK.

...............
Note 2.
"To measure objectivity, it is more realistic, optimal and pragmatic to rely on 1 above, i.e. the FSRK sense of Objectivity."

In the case of sense 2, the realists' [PH] absolute mind-independent sense of objectivity - is grounded on illusions.

Objectivity based on the existence of mind-independent external objects is useful only in a limited way within common and conventional senses.

However, in the philosophical sense and finer degrees of reality, realists dogmatically clasp at it as an ideology, i.e. "my way of the highway" without compromise.
This is more of a psychological issue than a philosophical one.

I believe it was Hume who alluded to the psychological base within philosophical contentions, i.e. the insistence of the reality of causality is actually based on the psychological impulses due to constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

The uncompromising position of the realists [philosophical & metaphysical] is driven by an evolutionary default that generate an existential crisis and cognitive dissonances which compelled realists to cling to that ideology as a defense mechanism.

This is the reason for the word-violence from many poster in this forum, at the extreme SOME [not all] realists will even kill those who threaten their realism[philosophical] bubble.

[FlashDangerpants]

I won't go into the details

Then you shouldn't have bothered with the thread.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes asked,
Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain

Also, the natural science objectivity that VA commends can have no other source than its capacity to explain the way(s) reality actually is - how ever provisional and revisable such explanations are.
Without this capacity, the notion of degrees of objectivity is incoherent. Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain.

'My fundamental principle of reality is this;
whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK* is the most objective.'
The above objectivity is in varying degrees within a continuum, i.e. 0.00 to 100.00.

Also,
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The FSRK sense of Objectivity [most realistic]
2. The realists' [PH] absolute mind-independent sense of objectivity - grounded on illusions.

We can jettison PH's sense of objectivity in this case since that will only lead to illusions.

To measure objectivity, it is more realistic, optimal and pragmatic to rely on 1 above, i.e. FSRK based objectivity.

According to my principle above, science-physics is conditioned upon the science-physics FSRK while astrology the astrology-FSRK.

Since the scientific FSRK* [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it follows the astrology-FSRK must be less objective than the science-physics FSRK.
*Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

I won't go into the details, but it is undeniable, if one is a rational person and critical thinker, it is obvious why the scientific FSRK [at its best], thus the science-physics' objective [say* at 90/100] is more objective than pseudo-science-astrology's degree of objective [say 10/100].
* the precise number is not critical at this stage, but rather the above reflect the estimated big relative difference based on a rational calculated guess.

So, "physics is 'more objective' than astrology" QED.


Discuss??
Views??

So. Physics is more objective than astrology because physics is based on the physics FSRK, and astrology is based on the astrology FSRK, and the physics FSRK is more objective than the astrology FSRK.

[Flannel Jesus]

So. Physics is more objective than astrology because physics is based on the physics FSRK, and astrology is based on the astrology FSRK, and the physics FSRK is more objective than the astrology FSRK.

Peter dumb cunts Holmes, I think you might just have something here!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes asked,
Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain

Also, the natural science objectivity that VA commends can have no other source than its capacity to explain the way(s) reality actually is - how ever provisional and revisable such explanations are.
Without this capacity, the notion of degrees of objectivity is incoherent. Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain.

'My fundamental principle of reality is this;
whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK* is the most objective.'
The above objectivity is in varying degrees within a continuum, i.e. 0.00 to 100.00.

Also,
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The FSRK sense of Objectivity [most realistic]
2. The realists' [PH] absolute mind-independent sense of objectivity - grounded on illusions.

We can jettison PH's sense of objectivity in this case since that will only lead to illusions.

To measure objectivity, it is more realistic, optimal and pragmatic to rely on 1 above, i.e. FSRK based objectivity.

According to my principle above, science-physics is conditioned upon the science-physics FSRK while astrology the astrology-FSRK.

Since the scientific FSRK* [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it follows the astrology-FSRK must be less objective than the science-physics FSRK.
*Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

I won't go into the details, but it is undeniable, if one is a rational person and critical thinker, it is obvious why the scientific FSRK [at its best], thus the science-physics' objective [say* at 90/100] is more objective than pseudo-science-astrology's degree of objective [say 10/100].
* the precise number is not critical at this stage, but rather the above reflect the estimated big relative difference based on a rational calculated guess.

So, "physics is 'more objective' than astrology" QED.


Discuss??
Views??

So. Physics is more objective than astrology because physics is based on the physics FSRK, and astrology is based on the astrology FSRK, and the physics FSRK is more objective than the astrology FSRK.

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

The only valid measure of the degrees of objectivity is based on the credibility and objectivity of the specific FSRK.

*Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
Do you have a counter for this?

Rationally and logically, since the scientific FSRK* [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it follows the astrology-FSRK must be less objective than the science-physics FSRK.

In more details, here is ChatGpt's [with reservations] views on why science-physics-cosmology is more objective than astrology.
Do you have a counter to the below conclusion by ChatGpt?

Scientific Methodology:
Science-cosmology: It is based on the scientific method which involves systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, and formulation of hypotheses. This process allows for the testing and refinement of theories based on empirical evidence.
Astrology: Astrology lacks a systematic methodology for testing its claims. It relies heavily on subjective interpretations of celestial positions and patterns without rigorous testing or empirical evidence to support its assertions.

Empirical Evidence:
Science-cosmology: It relies on empirical evidence gathered through observation and experimentation. The findings are subject to peer review and replication, ensuring the reliability and validity of the results.
Astrology: The claims made in astrology often lack empirical evidence. While astrological patterns may coincide with certain events or traits, there is no scientific basis to establish a causal relationship between celestial phenomena and individual destinies.

Predictive Power:
Science-cosmology: Cosmological theories, such as those in physics and astronomy, have demonstrated predictive power by accurately predicting phenomena ranging from eclipses to the behavior of celestial bodies.
Astrology: Astrological predictions are often vague and ambiguous, making it difficult to assess their accuracy objectively. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown that astrological predictions perform no better than chance when subjected to controlled testing.

Consistency and Falsifiability:
Science-cosmology: Scientific theories are expected to be consistent with existing evidence and must be falsifiable, meaning there must be a way to test and potentially disprove them. This allows for the refinement and improvement of scientific knowledge over time.
Astrology: Astrological claims often lack consistency and are not easily falsifiable. When faced with contradictory evidence or failed predictions, astrologers may resort to ad hoc explanations or reinterpretations rather than revising their theories.

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity:
Science-cosmology: Scientific inquiry strives for objectivity by minimizing the influence of personal biases and subjective interpretations. Findings are subjected to scrutiny by the scientific community, which helps to minimize errors and biases.
Astrology: Astrology relies heavily on subjective interpretations and relies on individual astrologers' intuition and personal beliefs. This makes it susceptible to confirmation bias, where practitioners may selectively focus on information that confirms their preconceived notions while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Overall, science-cosmology demonstrates a greater commitment to rationality, critical thinking, and objectivity compared to astrology, which relies more on intuition and hearsay without the rigorous testing and evidence-based approach characteristic of scientific inquiry.

From the above astrology is heavily subjective thus fall at the extreme low end of the objectivity continuum.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

yes

[Skepdick]

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

yes

Contradiction.

Even if objectivity is a matter of two degrees (either it's objective; or it isn't) it's still a matter of degrees.

Degree 0 (false)
Degree 1 (true).

etc. etc.

This philosophical grappling for framing is sooo lame.

Philosophers are sooo lame.

[Iwannaplato]

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

yes

How would you define objectivity?

I'll add the general definition of continuum:

a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct.

[Skepdick]

I'll add the general definition of continuum:

a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct.

Immaterial and useless definition. The continuum of the Real numbers is (-∞, +∞).

If it were true that "adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other" then the difference between negative and non-negative entities is NOT perceptable. And the difference between non-positive and positive entities is NOT perceptable.

So the transition from x < 0 to x = 0 is NOT perceptable.
And the transition from x = 0 to x > 0 is NOT perceptable.

It follows (by induction) that the transition from -∞ to +∞ is NOT perceptable.

What distinction are you perceiving?

But all of the above aside - which elements in R are "adjacent" to 0?

[FlashDangerpants]

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

yes

How would you define objectivity?

I'll add the general definition of continuum:

a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct.

Firstly I would argue that a great many of the errors I see on this forum begin with somebody tying to define something and then degenerate into discussions about dictionaries. I will always tend back towards my basic position which ordinary language focussed. Indeed VA's horrific version of the term is predicated on his belief that he has found a loophole via the wording of some definition that says "independent of any viewpoint" or something like that and he thinks that anything depending on more than one viewpoint is therefore definitionally "objective".

All of the dictionaries will make some sort of reference to objective knowledge claims being founded on supposed facts about the world. People who insist on going on forever about dictionary definitions must then insist on arguing "what is fact" and how foolish Pete is for disagreeing with them. Again, ordinary language philosophy doesn't really need to get bogged down in that mire either.

Those definitions are all aimed at something. Namely that objective knowledge claims are those which we can justifiably assert to be free from bias, corroborable, true or accurate observations. VA's intent with his continuum thing is to replace that. He wants to define objectivity as the high end of a scale of trustowrthiness of information. Whether he means by this that we know something with lots of good reason, or that we have widespread agreement about it is a conflict he takes both sides on, to me, I don't really care, it's shit either way.

So without particularly needing to show any clear definition of what objectivity is, I can safely say that VA has definitely got it wrong. The continuum model does not aim at the correct sort of analysis ay all. Between objectivity and subjectivity there is not a difference of magnitude, but of type.

Going one step further than I actually need to, I say that you can find the answer to the next question in our practices and language games. How do we check an objective knowledge claim? We look at the world outside of us to see the answer to some question about it. If we aren't checking in that sort of way, we are not looking at an objective claim.

All of VA's moral FSK thing is checked by asking a group of bearded men what number they assign to some moral question, and then he asserts that the aggregate number provided by said beardies is the objective measurement. Whether that even passes his shit test for objectivity is questionable, but it unquestionably fails mine.

[Skepdick]

Firstly I would argue that a great many of the errors I see.

You see errors? Are the errors with us right now? Are they objective or subjective errors?

Whether that even passes his shit test for objectivity is questionable, but it unquestionably fails mine.

Your test for objectivity smells like bullshit from where I am standing...

[Iwannaplato]

Those definitions are all aimed at something. Namely that objective knowledge claims are those which we can justifiably assert to be free from bias, corroborable, true or accurate observations.

Wouldn't there be degrees of justification. One experiment or 30. We can justifiably assert, working from evidence. Evidence can be stronger or weaker. Bias may be easy to see or only understood later. Paradigmatic biases may not be noticed at all, or considered to be rules out as present, but this ends up not being true. Certainty around the control of variables would be in degrees. A lot of objective conclusions in science and elsewhere include statistical analyses. It seems to me that one could look at two responsible scientific studies - IOW there are no clear biases or instances of fraud, etc - but still be able, were one doing a peer review, to say that one process was carried out more objectively than the other. Larger samples. Better checking of the process, perhaps independently, better control of variables in one protocol over the other...and so on.

Nothing damning related to either study, but one could be called more objective.

If we are going to use ordinary language use, it seems to me the question
Which team analyzed the data more objectively?
works in English.

Personally I think there are problems with the idea of (perhaps ideal of) objectivity. It is often treated as a discrete category, but I would say it does actually exist on a continuum without a clear boundary. One strives to be objective.

Though in the end this is
1) a question of degrees of rigor. Something becomes more rigorously arrived as a conclusion with more repetition, with greater samples, sometimes even with better technology and testing devices.
2) intersubjective

Any objective conclusion, at least in science, is considered revisable. So, something could come along and be arrived at via a more objective (or otherwise better process)

We are looking at degrees of justification (to the best of our knowledge so far).

We have arbitrary cut off points in peer review processes. OK, that was enough, they had enough of the right training, big enough samples and so on, to justify modifying beliefs we've held for a while, for example.

You come to a journal with a study that fits current paradigms and you will need less evidence, less justification than if you are going against current paradigms and models.

Both studies may well be objective, or deemed so, but you'll need more for the latter, before your conclusions are considered objective - by fallible humans.

I don't go with these issues I have with objectivity to the places VA takes them. That said, I think objectivity is problematic as a concept.

Or I might call it a useful fiction. Objective conclusions can be false. At least it seems like what most people would call objective methodologies can lead to false conclusions and these may not be found for a while.

We strive to eliminate bias and the rest, but given our being in situ as specific creatures with specific tendencies in our brains and limited knowledge, our sense of having been successful is biased by nature. We do our best.

I'm happy to use the term objective (and subjective), but I think in a philosophy forum (and likely in other places as well) the former is a problematic term and not a discrete category without gradations.

[Skepdick]

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

Those definitions are all aimed at something. Namely that objective knowledge claims are those which we can justifiably assert to be free from bias, corroborable, true or accurate observations.

Wouldn't there be degrees of justification. One experiment or 30. We can justifiably assert, working from evidence. Evidence can be stronger or weaker. Bias may be easy to see or only understood later. Paradigmatic biases may not be noticed at all, or considered to be rules out as present, but this ends up not being true. Certainty around the control of variables would be in degrees. A lot of objective conclusions in science and elsewhere include statistical analyses. It seems to me that one could look at two responsible scientific studies - IOW there are no clear biases or instances of fraud, etc - but still be able, were one doing a peer review, to say that one process was carried out more objectively than the other. Larger samples. Better checking of the process, perhaps independently, better control of variables in one protocol over the other...and so on.

Nothing damning related to either study, but one could be called more objective.

The question of epistemological worth isn't irrelevant, but it isn't definitional either. VA thinks that a knowledge claim with good basis is better than one with weak bases and I don't dispute that we should -- or we very much do even if we shouldn't -- grant extra weight and credibility to such claims. But his insistence that well attested claims are not only better but also more objective places the cart ahead of the horse. Strongness and weakness of evidence is not relevant to the discussion at this level or stage.

Intersubjectivity and peer review and all other consensus building strategies are all very well, but no amount of peer review and consensus makes it objective that Iago is a more complex or compelling villain than Richard III.

Peer review and consensus may be said to feed into the objective status of information about the orbit of the Earth around the Sun if you choose to push that aspect and I don't really care one way or the other over that matter. The key question is now, will always be, "how do we verify?". Objective information is verified by some sort of inspection of a phenomenon or state off affairs or somehting like that.

What constitutes the division between objectivity and subjectivity is a separate issue from whether objective information is better than subjective info. The latter relies entirely upon the context of the questions being asked, the first informs what questions can even be asked.

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.