vaxx:
Your definition is limited in scope, in philosophy of science , Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/). while subjectivity in philosophy is divided into thee definition, it Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity).

johnydon22:
I wanted to raise an argument later on the subjectivity or objectivity of morality and have a long discussion how objectivity in morality either must include or not necessarily include God or external influences to put a lid on that long standing argument.

johnydon22:
I wanted to raise an argument later on the subjectivity or objectivity of morality and have a long discussion how objectivity in morality either must include or not necessarily include God or external influences to put a lid on that long standing argument.

budaatum:
Hui-neng, a well-respected Buddhist monk who later became known as the founder of the Zen school, one day happened to be passing by two monks who were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.

One said, "The flag moves."

The other said, "The wind moves."

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves."

Vaxx, I've moved us here. By now I'm sure you realise you and I are going to be flogging this horse for a long time to come, so, from now on, if you don't mind, lets always return to this thread.

Yes, "objectivity is an ideal for science". Unfortunately, science is done by individuals (subjects), with perspectives. It is these perspectives that introduce the subjective into science, and while we might idealise and claim we are perfect, surely, we can only be lying! The article from Stanford states it as "several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable".

"The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example."

That, though is not to claim objectivity is impossible, but that if there is no objectivity (or if it is subjective) then it cannot be scientific.

Our discussion itself, is skewed by our subjective understandings, for has the Stanford article not been brought up to justify my position too at some time in the past when discussing this same subject?

budaatum:
Hui-neng, a well-respected Buddhist monk who later became known as the founder of the Zen school, one day happened to be passing by two monks who were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.

One said, "The flag moves."

The other said, "The wind moves."

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves."

vaxx:

i will like to know the aim of this thread, is it to ascertain that truth can only be objective while subjective truth should be discarded.or subjective truth can also be verified scientifically ?

vaxx:
the concept of "knowledge'' we are sharing here depends upon on objective evidence. If there is know one, and there is nothing commonly agree to know, you and i will not be able to know anything at all and the importance of education will be jeopardize

vaxx:
we have to accept the existence of an objective reality as a premise in order to function in the world. If an objective evidence does not exist, then all of our actions are meaningless, and it is impossible for humans to acquire knowledge about the world

My aim of the thread is to keep discussions on objectivity and subjectivity in one single easy to follow thread instead of spreading it across numerous threads. Participants may have other aims personal to themselves.

The subjective view is not encouraged in science as it cannot objectively be verified or falsified (tested, you would say). That is not to say that in all spheres of life, you discard subjective truth (for which I give two opinions below).

A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective.

To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person(s) making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others.

Some even claim that the objective view of the scientist is still tainted with subjectivity as the scientist is speaking from their own perspective.

But on a personal level, if I go to the doctor and say I have a pain in my head, I am giving a subjective opinion. The doctor will not say I have no pain because they can't measure my pain with their objective pain meter! Your request therefore, to discard the subjective view, is declined.

No! What objective evidence is there for or against gods? Would the god-believers and non-god-believers therefore agree that they have no knowledge to share? I don't think so. Just look at the number of threads set up on either side for sharing the subjective opinion for and against gods.

The fact is that we share subjective knowledge everyday even more so than we share objective knowledge. And claiming educators are objective is naive, at best. They can only be objective if all they taught were the facts, and there is quite a lot of debate on how fact based education does not encourage the use of the mind and creates unthinking individuals.

Please note that while I wish that what I write is objective, I am fully aware that all I write is subjective, even when I provide objective evidence to support it.

No! In reality, we actually live our lives based on a very subjective reality and function adequately and always have! Of course, when the objective reality contradicts my subjectivity and I insist on holding my subjective view, there is catastrophe, but I can pretty much go on for a while on the figments of my imaginations, and the human race has done so for centuries (i.e. the subjective view that the earth was the centre of the universe, or the once held view amongst some that it was the raising up of a donkeys hindlegs that got maidens pregnant.) A certain George Soros wrote extensively on the problem of ones subjective view diverging from objective reality. He called it [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29?wprov=sfla1]Reflexivity[/url].

That said, it is our subjective ignorant conclusions that we build on to attain an objective view of all that surrounds us. But let us not delude ourselves in thinking we are objective, when in reality we are trapped in our very own subjectivity


As an aside, I am amused, by the way, that you have not yet picked up on the fact that if I am arguing for the validity of the subjective view, then why would I argue against the subjects view of gods, which you know I do discard!

vaxx:
there is objective truth to any subjectivity or ......

vaxx:
faiths in science are a bit different from other faith of believers, scientific faith rested on research to support them that have been accepted as true for the sake of mental convenience

vaxx:
we should learn to separate objective reality from subjective reality. doing this we make us understand our selves better. i am surprised you are arguing for subjectivity, even when you claim you reject it in our last discussion, i must have really change your perspective.

No! Not true. I could be talking through my subjective ass with nothing objective to support it. Take the following possibly subjective statements for instance: "Vaxx has a potty mouth". How can that possibly be true? Or the aforementioned subjective opinion that, "Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria". Can that be true in anyway whatsoever? What objective evidence supports either statement?

I assert that subjective statements can be objectively true if there is independent evidence to support them! This was what I tried to explain with my one litre jug that was half full and half empty because I accurately filled it with half a litre of water! I also equally assert that subjective statements can also be false, like when I subjectively talk through my ass!

Finally, you admit that the faith of the scientist is a different faith to that held by a believer, which is based on no evidence whatsoever. (Now you remind me, I'm still pissed off you dilly dallied round the block without just saying this and being done with it!)

Would I be wrong in claiming the faith of a scientist is based on objective evidence, and not just a subjective convenience?

Learning is why I have continued to have this discussion vaxx. You will find from now on that you and I will always consider the objective and the subjective when we make any claim or read those of others.

And, it is your subjective view that I am arguing, or that I have ever rejected the subjective view, though I cannot objectively prove that I am not arguing!

Let me tell you a story. I sat in a pub with a friend of mine twenty years ago and we continued a discussion about objectivity while his girlfriend went to get tickets for a show they were going to watch later. About an hour later, she returned and was very unhappy. The tickets were twice as much as she had budgeted, and a bus had splashed water on her from a puddle by the roadside. My friend, wrapped up in our discussion, unpityingly told her to be objective, to which I responded "how can she be objective about the water splashed on a body that is subjective her or the objective and subjective extra money she had had to spend?" That experience showed us the complexity of what we had been discussing.

The fact is, everyone has a subjective view or opinion, and to reject it is pure fallacy of the stupid ignorant type or the blatant lying type, and not being aware of it at all is simply not really having evolved to the point of recognising it type.

I, for instance, am known to be an atheist, but if you asked me, I would tell you that I do not believe gods exist or not, but that I categorically know that gods do not exist. I go a tard further by claiming gods are the figments of the imagination created in the minds of those who create them. And I would insist that I have objectively come to these conclusions, by which I mean I checked the evidence for and against before coming to a conclusion.

Now go listen to butter, who would categorically insist on the existence of at least, a God, a conclusion he would insist he came to after checking what he too would claim is the objective evidence.

The fact is really that we both are stating our subjective views, or we would have both placed our objective evidence on the table and one of us would have had to shut up by now! But you ask us still, and we'd both claim we are being objective and presenting objective evidence, "or can't you see", we'd ask one another, while claiming the other's subjectivity blinds them to what to us seems objective.

I am not arguing with you vaxx. I find you worthy to discuss with because you give me something to consider. It is by considering that I tend to learn to separate my subjectives from the objective.

vaxx:
it is like saying,is it truth that there is no truth, which to me is nonsense,Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence.

vaxx:
this mystery may explain God to you if you give in a second thought.

vaxx:
if subjective statement is judged empirically,it become scientific and hence become objective,

vaxx:
good, it shows you are not close minded. you cannot be open minded and still remain an atheist, you now have one leg out of the river Rubicon.

I am not saying there is no truth. There is truth, but it has nothing to do with the number of people who agree. A billion people can agree on a lie. We could be deceived that what is untrue is true. Objectivity and truth are not determined by vote! The standards that determine a thing is objective, or the truth, do not include the number of people who say it is!

Remember the tree falling in the forest with no one to witness it? Is it true that a tree can fall in a forest if there is no one to see it fall? We can reach absolute truth, once you abandon the idea that it is democratically determined, or impossible.

My ma onced said, "buda, if people tell you something, why don't you try it before abandoning it". So one Sunday morning in 2000thereabouts, I followed her to church. On the Tuesday, I went to Bible Study, on Wednesday, I assisted the vicar in publishing the newsletter, and on Thursday, I volunteered teaching English in the free school set up by the church, and I was the secretary of the Parochial Church Council and the Men's Group. And I did this all religiously, as in regularly for 12 years. I have to inform you that "belief" did not catch me.

When I was a child, going to church on Sunday was the only way to get out of the house, so I went, religiously. It piqued my interest, as in what the heck they all saying and worshipping, so at 9 I began reading the Bible and finished it by the time I was 12, and realised I did not have the disease called "belief".

I have been studying the idea of gods and religions from the spiritual perspective, archaeological perspective, religious perspective, historical, psychological, sociological, mythical, mystical etc for decades now and have done so because of a search for knowledge and a lack of belief, and all the studying makes me unable to believe even more.


I would say the above is sufficient to determine that I have often given the idea of gods way more than second thoughts numerous times. So please stop projecting your subjective opinion about the amount of investigation I have done regarding the gods. One does not boldly state that gods are figments of the imagination on a whim!

"Belief" is what you get once you have closed your mind and become unwilling to consider further. "Knowing" is what you get to when you have considered all the evidence there is and have nothing further to consider, but will consider it if you happen to find further evidence to consider.


Judging a statement objectively does not make the statement objective! It just means you have objectively tested the statement itself and it may still remain a subjective unverified statement.


My stock response to this is, "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." It's Alice's response to the Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

One cannot open ones mind to all sorts of nonsense vaxx. And there is no need to fill the gap with gods out of sheer laziness! One can objectively check the evidence even if at the end ones conclusion is subjective to oneself.

budaatum:

I am not saying there is no truth. There is truth, but it has nothing to do with the number of people who agree. A billion people can agree on a lie. We could be deceived that what is untrue is true. Objectivity and truth are not determined by vote! The standards that determine a thing is objective, or the truth, do not include the number of people who say it is!

Remember the tree falling in the forest with no one to witness it? Is it true that a tree can fall in a forest if there is no one to see it fall? We can reach absolute truth, once you abandon the idea that it is democratically determined, or impossible.



My ma onced said, "buda, if people tell you something, why don't you try it before abandoning it". So one Sunday morning in 2000thereabouts, I followed her to church. On the Tuesday, I went to Bible Study, on Wednesday, I assisted the vicar in publishing the newsletter, and on Thursday, I volunteered teaching English in the free school set up by the church, and I was the secretary of the Parochial Church Council and the Men's Group. And I did this all religiously, as in regularly for 12 years. I have to inform you that "belief" did not catch me.

When I was a child, going to church on Sunday was the only way to get out of the house, so I went, religiously. It piqued my interest, as in what the heck they all saying and worshipping, so at 9 I began reading the Bible and finished it by the time I was 12, and realised I did not have the disease called "belief".

I have been studying the idea of gods and religions from the spiritual perspective, archaeological perspective, religious perspective, historical, psychological, sociological, mythical, mystical etc for decades now and have done so because of a search for knowledge and a lack of belief, and all the studying makes me unable to believe even more.


I would say the above is sufficient to determine that I have often given the idea of gods way more than second thoughts numerous times. So please stop projecting your subjective opinion about the amount of investigation I have done regarding the gods. One does not boldly state that gods are figments of the imagination on a whim!

"Belief" is what you get once you have closed your mind and become unwilling to consider further. "Knowing" is what you get to when you have considered all the evidence there is and have nothing further to consider, but will consider it if you happen to find further evidence to consider.


Judging a statement objectively does not make the statement objective! It just means you have objectively tested the statement itself and it may still remain a subjective unverified statement.


My stock response to this is, "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." It's Alice's response to the Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

One cannot open ones mind to all sorts of nonsense vaxx. And there is no need to fill the gap with gods out of sheer laziness! One can objectively check the evidence even if at the end ones conclusion is subjective to oneself.

vaxx:

she will grow to become like this after years of consummation, she will definitely grow old.

that the new weapons you say in there will soon become old fashioned later as it cannot be new for life. so there is relativity in what they both saw but was not absolute.

budaatum:



What Ogun an Sango above saw is not relative, but observed at different times! Or perhaps the sekete they drank with their dinner went to their eyes!

vaxx:
There is always more than enough error in your feedback, be careful next time , you are error free even if is small, this is is how you reject subjective evidence, not until i shown you a lot of theories telling how much fallacy you are making. this is another one again. According to an academic source. this is what relativism imply, '' Relativism, roughly put,

vaxx:
if you were the type of person reading lot of philosophy articles, which i doubt, you would have find no mention of ‘absolute truths’ and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent species of truth.

vaxx:
when i say there is no absolute true, this is what i am expressing.

– Anything that we take to be true is revisable
– We can never have a unique-eye’ view of the universe
– All truths are a matter of opinion
– Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
– All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
– There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

budaatum:

No one is arguing relativism with you! There is nothing relatively true about the statement Prince Harry being the current president of Nigeria!

And I never rejected subjectivity! But if by "subjective evidence", you mean subjective like "because I said so", then you must be tripping. So, in case I err, define " subjective evidence" please!

And I never said I was error free and have posted on here where the showerhead taught me the folly of aiming to be perfect! If you cared for the objective truth, I would tell you that my ability to ensure I am infallible is fallible.



“Are you absolutely sure of that?”

I cringed when you introduced the idea of "absolute truth" vaxx, but decided not to hold you up on it in order to keep to the discussion at hand.

That said, I am amused that you who claims to read philosophy would not know that there is a lot of argument on the topic.

"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.


What you are claiming here is that everything is subjective! Yet, you yourself have, in our discussion claimed some things are objective! So which is it now, is everything subjective and objectivity is impossible, or can there be objectivity?

Do me a favour, stop peppering your comments with patronising and condescending statements. A person who claims to read philosophy should be able to philosophise without constantly patronising the person he philosophises with!

vaxx:
@budaatum, while i was giving you an academic references that was published under rigorous and scientific research , you are here honoring me with non substantial references from allaboutphilosphy and got question. mtcheew, this kick out your response, please use academia website for me next time. wikipedia or rational wiki is preferred if not universities journals.

vaxx:
you lack comprehension? am done with you on this . maybe another one next time.

budaatum:

What you posted does not claim truths do not exist. It purely gives a survey of views on the topic. And you might notice that I do not go about throwing irrelevant references at you. My point is a simple, "if there are no truths, why are you throwing what you claim is true at me?" Or aren't you?

Besides, the term, "absolute truths" was introduced by you when it suited you to do so. I gave a simple example, "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". I also gave you an objective reason why it is true and you never gave anything back claiming it isn't!

So I simply repeat, is the statement "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", a statement any rational minded person would claim is not objectively absolutely verifiably true today, 22 April 2018?

vaxx:
AM done on this blind argument, i will tolerate it again if i notice i will be exploring a new breath of knowledge from you. i cannot continue the argument i am not benefiting. it should not be only me presenting, it should be both of us. get yourself some book and better your understanding, i saw this flaw in you earlier even before i change your subjective perspective. IRE O

vaxx:
EVEN after enlightening you that empirical statement cannot be subjective, you are still repeating this poo for the purpose of argument.

budaatum:

I assert that subjective statements can be objectively true if there is independent evidence to support them! This was what I tried to explain with my one litre jug that was half full and half empty because I accurately filled it with half a litre of water! I also equally assert that subjective statements can also be false, like when I subjectively talk through my ass!

vaxx:
you lack comprehension my man . i correct you overtime, any element or statement that can be proven empirically is not subjective, it is objective,

DeLioncourt:
I am of the opinion that the religious god does not exist in any form.

Kemzeee1:
yes my dear God do really exist. he is in you

DeLioncourt:
that you choose to believe so, doesn't make it so.

Butterflyleo:
That you chose to disbelieve so, doesn't make it so.

vaxx:
likewise i also correct you making statement like that of your claim is objective statement because it can be be verified, scrutinized and observed. you are still repeating your normal mistake. i am done biko.

vaxx:
it is either you lack understanding or it is intentional , maybe doing it to cover shame when your ignorance have been exposed. i have given it to the viewer to make a judge. if i do not know , i read thru the lines rather than argue. @budaatum

vaxx:
you lack comprehension? am done with you on this . maybe another one next time.

johnydon22:
I wanted to raise an argument later on the subjectivity or objectivity of morality and have a long discussion how objectivity in morality either must include or not necessarily include God or external influences to put a lid on that long standing argument.