Objectivity? Not Possible For An Observer.
Why do so many people believe in objectivity? Some dictionary definitions:
"intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."
Some questions based on the definitions:
What is external to the mind?
What is the object of thought without the thought? Is there a difference between a "thinking subject" and "thought"?
To be an object, like a rock, is to be object-ive, or to have objectness. This is the only sensible gloss of "objectivity"...derivable from tangibility only. Nothing objective exists without an observation, or, nothing "exists" apart from an observation.
If to be objective connotes existing apart from an observation...objectiveness is non existent. I never have understood what people mean when they speak of being objective. Shall I turn myself into a rock? But then I won't be conscious or able to think or make observations... I'm afraid this is another one of those concepts that's ensnared most people as another consensus reality trap and led to intellectual sloth.
"intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."
Some questions based on the definitions:
What is external to the mind?
What is the object of thought without the thought? Is there a difference between a "thinking subject" and "thought"?
To be an object, like a rock, is to be object-ive, or to have objectness. This is the only sensible gloss of "objectivity"...derivable from tangibility only. Nothing objective exists without an observation, or, nothing "exists" apart from an observation.
If to be objective connotes existing apart from an observation...objectiveness is non existent. I never have understood what people mean when they speak of being objective. Shall I turn myself into a rock? But then I won't be conscious or able to think or make observations... I'm afraid this is another one of those concepts that's ensnared most people as another consensus reality trap and led to intellectual sloth.
Comments (62)
But, but... One's biases and experience are a fundamental part of how we arrive at our beliefs! :chin:
Maybe it will help to define "objectivity".
Objectivity is an agreed (but vaguer) form of more than one subjectivities.
This is what peer-view is aiming for. We could also say that such derivation of subjectivities is "external to the mind" outlines what it is external - out there.
Enjoy the day,
A belief is objective if it is the one that any disinterested inquirer would come to when presented with all the evidence. So, for example the belief that water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade is an objective one.
Yes, objectivity is really inter-subjectivity. But I think that more than a couple or even a few subjects would be required to agree about a belief based on the same evidence for it to be counted as objective.
:up: Connected with taking methodological naturalism as a metaphysical principle, which it isn't.
It is hard to quantify how many subjective views we need to achieve "objective" status. I would say two minimum without objections.
Hearty,
Is gravity objective?
Before Newton, geometry (circle) was the driving "force" behind movements of celestial objects. So Copernicus proposed the heliocentric system with circular orbits for planets. It didn't work, so Kepler cheated with his elliptical orbits...
And then Newton proposed the gravitational theory and everything clicked together...
The Newton's theory is still a theory - but is it objective?
At some point we need it to be "objective". If new information contradicts - we still have a method called belief revision...
I agree that we need more than two subjective views to proclaim that the theory is objective. But how many - depends on circumstances...
Hearty,
I concur with @StreetlightX and yourself. In line with this modern alteration of the meaning of "objective", and together with the rise of metaphysical realism (Putnam's phrase for the thesis that what exists objectively must exist entirely separately from human concerns and/or concepts), another main culprit, it seems to me, is representationalism in the philosophy of mind and in contemporary cognitive science. This is an inheritance from Descartes methodological skepticism; stemming from its underlying assumption that what it is that we really are in cognitive contact with in the world can only be the highest common factor between the way it affects us in the case where we really perceive it and the case were we are subjected to some illusion. Such common factors or cognition or perception, allegedly produced "in" the mind, taint all cognition of the world with subjectivity and problematize both the concepts of objectivity and of subjectivity. It makes it hard to conceive how the very same cognitive act could be unproblematically objective and, at the same time, necessarily imbued with human subjectivity.
It's a model.
Models are not the modeled.
Unless you're thinking about thoughts, the thoughts are not that which you're thinking of.
...
Shameless plug.
That's the first time I heard that a model is not a theory...
Hearty,
I agree. I think this is a really major underlying issue in many of the debates here. One of the philosophers who analyses it in depth is Thomas Nagel, although Hilary Putnam seems another.
This sense of 'otherness' is not due to Descartes alone, but to the whole complex comprising Cartesian dualism, representational realism, and the emphasis on quantification in respect of all kinds of questions - the typical mindset of modernism (to be distinguished from post-modernism).
Which is not to say that objectivity is not valuable in its domain of application, and something to strive for. But I think a better and more comprehensive term for about the same quality is 'disinterestedness' or 'detachment'.
I think you might mean something quite mild when you say "objective", maybe "unbiased"? Even then, there is a difference between that and consensus. The former is genuinely unbiased; the latter describes a bias that is in accord with the bias(es) of the majority. Even an infinite number of people who agree with you doesn't make your opinion objective.
What about Global Warming? We have very large scientific consensus - and yet we have large non-scientific views denying that Global Warming exists...
Hearty, :cool:
There are usually etymological and historical relationships between the different uses of a word, but great confusion can be caused by using a word one way when your listener is thinking of it in another way.
But responding in the same general terms as you're using, I think of the objective as the ingress of surprise into consciousness. Surprise is what clues us in that there's something "external" to our minds, our feelings, our preferences, our wishes, etc.
In that context, objectivity is then an attitude where we subordinate what we think to what we discover.
I don't thinks this quite works. My dreams and fantasies exist known to me, but they're subjective. So is being me. I can tell other people about my subjectivity, and to the extent it's similar to their own, they can relate to it. But there is a sense in which there is this chasm between all of us, to varying degrees. I will never know what it's like to give birth or be born blind.
Even more so, I can't know what it is to be another animal. I'm sure there are some similarities, but I will never experience the world of smell the way a dog does.
As for the medieval view on this, the subjective/objective split showed up in ancient philosophies in both Europe and Asia. It's not just a recent mistake that's been made, but rather is reflective of having minds that can dream, imagine, hallucinate, and have individual bodies which have to use indirect means to communicate experiences.
Quoting StreetlightX
Well, science (physics in particular) paints a picture of the world very different from the one we experience, and the question of to what extent the world is like what we perceive has been around for a very long time. Does the color we experience exist in the objects, or is that just a result of having eyes that detect EM radiation in the range where photons bounce off objects? Does time actually flow as we experience it? And so on.
I'm not particularly concerned with what you think, I'm telling you how it was, and how the current distinction between subject and object is an outgrowth - a cancerous one, I'd say - of a more original distinction which was far more coherent and far more interesting than its current day incarnation.
The earth is warming, as it has done since the last ice age. This is objective. Where objectivity gets lost is blaming this on humans.
Say for the sake of argument, the observed warming was due to humans. If so, this would be the first time in the history of the earth, that human caused the earth to warm. In the bigger picture of the philosophy of science, one should not draw a dogmatic conclusion, based on one single event and then call that being objective. It would be like developing a new medicine, giving it to one person and claiming it is the new wonder drug. It may be, but one data point or one event is not enough to be so sure, unless one is driven by subjectivity.
The earth has warmed and cooled, all by itself, many times in the past. The earth causing the warming would be much closer to being objective, since we have dozens of data points to show this is not just possible but has lots of precedent.
Another way to look at this is, the same swamp people, that brought you the Russian collusion narrative, also brought you the global warming narrative. They are composed of lawyers, intelligence people, media and marketeers, who are very effective in convincing people that a subjective line of bull, repeated enough times, can appear to be objective fact.
The trick for being objective is to know your own subjectivity, so you can filter it out. This skill can be developed through self reflection and research into your own unconscious mind. Science overcomes subjectivity with a group approach, where each member provide checks and balances for each other since scientists can be subjective, when lots of research money is at stake. This is when the subjective sales pitch is needed to compete for the cash.
Example: There is a painting of a flower in a room. Ten people gets the task of going into the room and then come out and write down a description of what they saw in that room. All of these descriptions become a subject interpretation of the fact (the painting of a flower). But the sum of all those interpretations is the objective viewpoint. I.e a single person cannot hold a purely objective opinion or viewpoint, but a collective can, as long as the interpretations are presented, as close as they individually can, to be objective.
If you increase the numbers of the group from ten to hundred or a thousand and so forth, the objectivity becomes greater. This is why the only real way to be objective is through the scientific method. Relying on as objective observations as possible, tests that shows answers that aren't influenced by subject views and combining many studies and peer reviews to come to a combined objective conclusion.
Another method is through pure logic, in which a rational argument cannot be false since it follows logic and if broken breaks logic rather than a subjective viewpoint. But such arguments are limited in what they can describe, for example, math solutions are mostly objective, meaning they can't be changed through subjective means.
Another perspective is also that objectives and subjectives are constructs of the human mind. For us, objectivity is an illusion because we can only agree on whats true based on our subjective viewpoint, but for the objective world, if it would have had a mind, would view subjectivity as an illusion of skewed interpretation of something solid.
What makes this thing more interesting is when we go down to quantum levels and the behaviour of particles that change whenever we measure them, or becomes objective when we look for an objective answer. However, if we view randomness as based on the scale of the universe, the smaller something gets, the less objective it becomes. You could probably predict the entire future history of the largest objects in the universe, their objective paths, but we aren't small enough either to be free of this, you need to go down to quantum levels in order to start questioning the objective as equal to the subjective. Objective should then be considered a state of probability. But at our scale we exist in a state of measurable high probability, so we can be objective, as long as we use methods external to our subjective views.
However, a single person cannot and will not ever be able to be objective, but we can be objective as a group, if members of that group has the intention of individually being objective through the process.
The industrial revolution was also the first time in the history of the Earth. For the first time in the history of the Earth, humans burned carbon on industrial scales. There are also estimates of how many tonnes of carbon have been turned into carbon dioxide...
I do not think that this will be easily bridged. :)
Quoting Christoffer
The most of the peer-review processes yield a pretty objective picture. However, there can be only one person that submits a paper for peer-review as the second stage towards consensus. In such cases, a single person could be very close to the consensus reached through peer-review...
We can partly agree here... :)
Hearty, :cool:
"The earth is warming, as it has done since the last ice age. This is objective. Where objectivity gets lost is blaming this on humans."
- I feel that you are picking premisses that only support your conclusion here. Through the scientific process you get as close to objectivity as we can get. But you put aside all the other data that support the objective claim that humans affect the climate. Measurements aren't just about temperature, they are about correlations between fluctuations in our climate with events in our history, primarily from the industrial revolution up until today.
Just because someone doesn't understand how to read the data that has been put forward by numerous scientists and doesn't have the knowledge to use that data in order to reach an objective conclusion doesn't mean that the scientific community that has put forward their conclusions is wrong.
"Another way to look at this is, the same swamp people, that brought you the Russian collusion narrative, also brought you the global warming narrative. They are composed of lawyers, intelligence people, media and marketeers, who are very effective in convincing people that a subjective line of bull, repeated enough times, can appear to be objective fact."
- This begging the question. You assume your conclusion is correct by a premise you assume to be correct, but in fact is composed of another fallacy, correlation doesn't mean causation. You could actually say the opposite about this, that the people you bring up have these opinions because they are smarter and have the facts on their side and there's just as much to support that as there is to your false conclusion. This is not a premiss or argument that works, so your conclusion becomes false. You also put aside the fact that climate research has been going on longer than the "Russian collusion narrative" as you call it. By history of this field of science alone, your argument and premiss becomes false.
"The trick for being objective is to know your own subjectivity, so you can filter it out. This skill can be developed through self reflection and research into your own unconscious mind. Science overcomes subjectivity with a group approach, where each member provide checks and balances for each other since scientists can be subjective, when lots of research money is at stake. This is when the subjective sales pitch is needed to compete for the cash."
- Agreed on the scientific process, but it seems you are concluding that because scientists need funds in order to do research, they create false conclusions in order to get funds, which isn't supported by any premisses that are correct. One thing is that things like climate change has been in research by numerous institutes around the globe, all with different means of doing research. Some instituts have been getting funds without the need of appealing to investors so their findings aren't biased by fundraising processes.
The fact that you choose this subject is strange under the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity, since the scientific community has a large consensus about humans affecting the climate. It's in more consensus than a lot of work in the field of physics and gravity.
If you want to discuss objectivity vs subjectivity, you might want to pick something that aren't focused on political ideology, since what you put forward doesn't have any premisses that support any conclusion in this discussion. Humans affecting climate change has been proven by the scientific community and by 97% consensus which is very high in the world of scientific research. Conclusions by people who aren't involved in this field of science should be careful to dismiss this, since THAT is pure subjectivity and subjectivity out of ideology.
Therefor, the conclusion you draw based on the subjects you chose are a pure subjective opinion about the level of objectivity the science have, it's not an objective opinion about the level of objectivity the scientific community has.
The argument can be boiled down to this.
1. You need to have education and knowledge of climate research in order to properly and objectively analyze the data together with other scientists in this field. Without knowledge of the process and science in this field, you cannot come to any viable conclusion.
2. Climate change scientists are in high consensus about humans affecting the climate.
3. Climate change scientists are too spread across the globe and works under too many different economical processes to be viably blamed for any conspiracy in getting research funds. Such a conspiracy also demands that all scientists have the driving force of earning money, that none of them have the drive force of wanting to reach a true conclusion in this field.
4. Those who oppose the conclusion that humans affect the climate does not have proper education or knowledge in the field.
5. Those who oppose the conclusion that humans affect the climate often use fallacy arguments and purely ideological ideas to back up their conclusions, rather than looking at the science.
Conclusion: The most objective conclusion you can do as a person that aren't educated in the climate field of science is to listen to the consensus of the scientists. To instead listen to those who oppose, the ones who does not have any education, those who use fallacies in all their arguments and put forth claims of a unproved conspiracy would be truly irrational and subjective. If a politician agrees with the scientific consensus and you do not agree with that politicians ideological position, it's not the scientists who are wrong when you don't agree with that politician, that's called guilt by proxy. Not believing in the science because politicians you don't agree with, agree with that science, does not equal the science to be wrong. So using arguments that focus on who agrees with the scientific community as a basis for why the science is wrong, is a subjective ideological conclusion, not an objective one. So you are using pure subjective premisses and arguments on the subject of subjectivity and objectivity, which makes a bit of a mess to your reasoning.
You suggest that consensus, where we all agree, but we could all be wrong, is the same as objective, which offers a sort of guarantee that something is correct, and accurately reflects reality?
Then, by your definition, the only way it is possible for there to be objectivity is if there are no beings in existence capable of making an observation. Once we have an observer, objectivity doesn't exist, It matters not whether there is one observer or an infinity of them. To observe, conceptualize, logic chop, engage reason, measure, all requires splitting a foreground of observation from the background of what isn't observed or known.
How is it possible not to interpret something. The selection of what to be informed by against the background of truth, or incomplete information (perhaps truth from its side is complete, but to one of us or all of us, it is endlessly incomplete) is already an interpretation.
To say "all of these descriptions become a subject interpretation of the fact" and "but the sum of all those interpretations is the objective viewpoint" of the flower appears to be some sort of casuistry. What is the the real difference between "all of the descriptions" and " the sum of all those interpretations"; what is the difference between an interpretation and a description? Can you describe to me all of these descriptions or the sum total of the interpretations? How does one person ever have a sum total viewpoint as the "collective"? Surely the collective viewpoint would be exclusive to the collective, and intellectual honesty forbids me to entertain this fiction. In other words, do you honestly believe in a collective viewpoint? Once again if you please, describe to me what is a collective viewpoint?
Is it possible for two people to share the same observation? If so, please explain.
Maybe I could see two people being objective together if they aren't making an observation...which is impossible unless they be unconscious; maybe when they sleep in the same bed in a state of deep sleep they are almost objective. How would summing or averaging two different people's observations be possible without intellectual dishonesty? There is always a process of selecting one frame against all possible frames. And the frame is predominately a qualitative ontological edifice, not a quantitative, or countable one. Frames of observation can't be multiplied, or applied computations to, but only changed. It makes no sense to talk of a change of observing boundaries inclusive of two different people because this isn't possible anyway (sharing the same boundary of observational viewpoint). It does make sense to talk about one individual changing his frame of reference over time.
I don't even need to type anything, as I typed it all just a few short minutes ago:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
:smile:
True that all could be wrong, that's why I described it as a rising objectivity with more people in that group. For example, if a field of science comes to the conclusion with a 99% consensus, that is pretty objective and it's hard to find the subjective part in that conclusion, even if it technically isn't pure objectivity. But there is a problem within this binary way of deciphering objectivity.
Thing is, we could argue that there isn't anything that makes us humans being able to be objective, if we're putting the definition of objective to be 100% objective in relation to the objective world. Meaning, through the lens of the unconscious material and purely objective world that exists outside of our concept and perception of it, that is the only thing that can truly be objective, since any observation requires subjectivity.
However, the concept of objectivity is not defined as 100% pure objectivity as in, there isn't a subject mind around to interpret it, but instead a definition of what we see as proven facts outside of our concept and interpretations of it. So, gravity, that things are falling to the ground is objectively true and while we could argue that we don't know that it is true as it's only our interpretation of sensory information, we cannot be 100% sure it's an objective truth. But "objectivity" as we define it isn't about that, it's about the closest we can get to something that we can comprehend as existing outside of our perception and subjective mind. We agree upon gravity pulling objects to the center of the planet, it's an objective truth for us within the framework of the world and universe that we define ourselves within. Therefor, the higher number of consensus among the highest numbers of people who are as objective as they can possibly be with their subjective minds, is what objectivity means to us humans.
Any other definition of objectivity means we need to step outside of being humans, therefor we need to be another form of entity to redefine what objective means.
That's why I defined the scientific process as the closest we humans have got to being truly objective and that form of objectivity should be considered a true definition of the word. Otherwise we open up to defining anything, any knowledge that we have, as subjective and that's a slippery slope down to denying facts in science.
Why are numbers so important, here? Shouldn't we be able to discuss objectivity at the individual level? We can't ignore the inherent delimitation of consciousness and mentalese when discussing these things, can we? Understanding begins once we know how laws of consciousness and the spectrum of subjectivity to "objectivity" works for one person at a time. To begin to speak of two people as though they were one is to skip over most of the discussion. It's a huge jump from the individual to the collective on the topic of objectivity, if we must refer to the collective as necessary to the discussion of objectivity....I'm sure it's better to keep it to what communicates, what is possible and what isn't, objectively, between no more than two people.
There are built-in "laws" of the mind which are deterministic as to what is possible or not before we begin to speak of consensus reality...which is another word for intellectual laziness. Unfortunately, the dogma and intellectual laziness of science is coming to look more and more like religion.
There are no guarantees that peer-review will yield an objective view. Even replicated experiments will never give us a 100% objective view.
However, we need to settle at a certain point on the less than 100% objectivity.
The best way to look at this issue is the approximation.
Enjoy the day, :cool:
I disagree with this ... but my disagreement is unimportant. You mean something much less objective than I do when I use the term. I'm a (so-called) subjectivist because of my understanding of, and respect for, the concept of objectivity. [That, and the realisation that there is almost nothing 'objective' that a human can know. ] We have a semantic disagreement here, centring on the term "objective". That's OK, but let's leave it there? There's many interesting hours can be spent discussing objectivity, but semantic differences aren't part of that. :wink: :up: :smile:
Quoting Anthony
I was defining what the most objective knowledge we can have is. I.e however the individual work, the objective truth is always the one defined by the many if the individual of that group is trying to be objective. "Trying to be objective" is in some ways pretty obvious, it's essentially just like looking up into the sky and say it's blue and not red. If one person says it's red, it's subjective, if one person says it's red and nine others says it's blue, it's rational to deduct that the sky is blue as an objective truth, but the probability is only nine out of ten. The more people that gets in on it, the higher the consensus gets and the higher the probability of objective truth. If one person says it's red, two says it's green and ten thousand other people says it's blue, it's hard to call that not objective as a truth. And while you can say that, yes, it's only that truth in the eyes of our perception, we can only define words within the parameters of our perception and ability to be objective. So the objective definition of the word "objective" should be what we all can agree on being objective, not what is 100% objective outside of our perception. What is then the most pure objective truth out of our perception and concept of how to define that word? Well, that is defining it as the truth with the most consensus around among as many people as possible. The sky is blue, because it's objectively true for all of us, not necessarily for any aliens with other forms of perception.
To define the word objective means that we define it in order to use it, otherwise we need to stop using language since words have to loose of definitions.
But I agree that we should try and define what's objective for the individual, unfortunately I think it's impossible to be objective as an individual, therefor why I wrote what I wrote.
Quoting Anthony
For an individual to be objective, the only way I see it possible is to use a deductive way of thinking. You present premises that seem to correlate with what you can pick up with your senses and then you combine many premises to conclude something. But that requires one to be precise and not judge what you examine. Problem is that most of the premises will in pure definition be subjective, so you use subjective premises to conclude something objectively. So can the conclusion be objective? If the deductive method puts forth pure logic, by almost mathematical precision, it might, but it's hard to define a singular individual as being objective.
In essence, I don't think it's possible for a single individual to be subjective, you need a collective to reach objective results and truths.
I don't mind the semantic discussion, because I think it essentially is about semantics. Without a definition baseline for the word, how do we discuss the parameters of the concept? I think the semantic difference we speak of here is that I view objectivity through the lens of humans using that word to describe absolute truth outside of our perception, but reachable by a scientific method, since we've reached truths that can be considered objective truths in order to, let's say, advance technology. If we didn't have an objective truth, we wouldn't have been able to harness material into different technologies that we have today. If all that research was subjective, nothing would work. So objective is a reachable concept for us, but objective truth for me, requires a collective with a deductive reasoning per individual.
Your definition of objective seems to be more omnipotent, something that is a concept that we humans can never reach by the simple fact that everything is interpreted in order for us to experience anything. So the objective is unreachable, the reality that exists outside of the sensory perception we have.
But I think that even if we are limited in our perception of pure untapped reality, we have already harnessed aspects of this reality in technology and science, which points to us already understanding some objective concepts. A lot of proven theories in science have objective implications all over the universe and that's objectively true for the reality outside of our perception, as well as within our perception.
I hope that clears things up a bit for what I'm trying to reason for here?
Even so, the current cancerous ones had parallels in ancient philosophy. They're not an entirely new outgrowth of something from the middle ages. And the more interesting distinction between subject and object doesn't make questions about subjectivity and knowledge of an objective world go away.
The collective, as I see it, has no existence; the most I could cede is that it is an average of viewpoints...the problem here being I don't much grok averages either, they don't represent or describe any thing but a mathematical abstraction...rather nebulous, without texture. Sort of like fantasy. Which is why this topic is so ironic and interesting; many people treat science and peer review like God, all the way up to the point of personification of it: e.g.: "the science says/tells us...." ...which is essentially like "God spoke to me; God told us..." Like the transcendent belief in a God that can be found nowhere, so it is with collective beliefs.
The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? If you subscribe to the existence of collectives, you can say they exist in variable human sects: culture, religion, politics, nationalism, corporations (insane concept of personhood), military, sports, or any authoritative doctrine which asks of complete unquestioning obeisance and excision of individual virtue and agency (deindividuation). Problem with this is reason never makes it beyond duty and obedience. Where is the physical evidence of any collective? Evidence is the ultimate authority of science.
Surely , if we are honest and look into it, we would find out that a change of course, rejection of experimental validity, inaccuracy of testing, missed confounding variables, etc., is occasioned by the decision of the agency of one individual. Again, it is impossible for two or more people to make a decision in exactly the same moment as a unified mind of one with infrangible autonomy. One person who has retained his agency becomes the mover/shaker, others toe the line in a way prefigured by the Asch Conformity Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments.
It is hoped scientists won't have such a fear of designing odd experiments that can't easily be shared they conceive of a new science as objectified by BCI (brain computer interface) network between researchers. If this were to happen, the Borg of Star Trek realized, maybe I'd have to reconsider objectivity as a reasonable approach (however, this would have to include the ability to record and transmit emotions, mentalese, mental imagery, dreams, the whole inner domain, not only what may be re presented in symbols)...until then, we have to discuss the psychological force in the mind of the individual before jumping to an automated, algorithmic collective consensus.
A shift of agency can happen in a thousand subtle ways. Then when communication with command control center (dictatorship of collective consensus) is lost, and the individual is drawn back to himself, alienation, estrangement, and panic inevitably set in as he discovers his free agency had long ago been given away.
For all the Enlightenment effaced in the irrational faith of religious dogma, it opened up another box of fundamentalism laying so much stress on metrology to the point where today this thrill of objectivity has resulted in outlandish concepts like eliminative materialism. Not sure it will end well. Some AI scientific prejudice or sectarianism will have the trappings of a new eugenics movement. If you can't be objective, then maybe you'll have to get a chip in your brain or take a drug that makes it impossible to diverge from socio-scientific constructed reality (peer review is as much about social construction of science than any rigor of method).
Quoting Anthony
How is it viewpoints if each individual use deductive reasoning? If a thousand people use deductive reasoning to reach the same conclusion, that should be considered an objective truth by the definition of the word. Any other definition reduce the use of the word into nothing. If you view it as absolute objective, meaning any form of observation equals subjectivity, even if a collective where almost all individual conclusions have mathematical logic and all conclusions are the same without them knowing of each others conclusions, then the word objective has no meaning or purpose in language anymore because it cannot be used. If anything I would suggest that objective is used by my definition of it and that your definition is called absolute objectiveness, which refers to a cosmic objectiveness outside the realm of human perception.
Quoting Anthony
I think you misinterpret what I actually mean by the scientific process. What I mean is that the scientific method is the closest form of method we have to reach an objective truth. It's not like saying "God told us" if we have evidence that support a claim, measurements made by many separated scientists to reach a conclusion without subjective opinions.
Quoting Anthony
I never said that the collective consensus should come to a conclusion without evidence, I said that the collective in individual separation from each other, doing deductive reasoning, would reach the most objective conclusion possible when evidence is missing. If evidence is clear, each individual would through the scientific method reach a conclusion and when compared to other findings, if these checks out, the collective of scientists that individually reached the same conclusion through the evidences they found, have by consensus reached an objective truth by the definition of the word (at least by the definition of the word as in how we use it in our language).
Quoting Anthony
If a collective use individual subjective truths based on the group they belong to, in order to reach a conclusion, that is not what I described. If each individual use a deductive reasoning, meaning, they clearly need correct premisses in order to reach an individual conclusion that is then compared to others conclusions to reach a consensus. If you are within one of these groups and you do not follow procedur, the group will not reach an objective truth. Example of this is when in a group of religious belief, each individual truth is that God exists and comparing to the others the objective truth would be that God exists, but this is false, since all the individual conclusions are based on individual belief, not deductive reasoning for the existence of God. So there is no objective truth as a conclusion of that collective. To try and be objective, means you open the doors for the collective to reach an objective truth. Trying means, by any means at your disposal, minimizing your subjective input on the matter. This is essentially what scientists do, they try to use logic, math, research, tests, more tests and so on, to reach as close to an objective truth as they can individually do and then this research goes into duplication by others to verify that this conclusion is correct regardless of the individual.
This is what I mean by the usefulness of the definition of the word, objective. If the word instead is defined as absolute objectivity, it does not have any viable use in our language, because it has no purpose anymore. And if you render the term "objective" useless, by arguing that everything is subjective, you are essentially opening a can of worms that nothing can be proven.
This absoluteness of these terms, the absoluteness of how we define things, makes it impossible to practically define the difference between proven facts/truths and subjective viewpoint. It then becomes a slippery slope in which everything can be said to be subjective and therefor nothing is true. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had the technology we use to write all of this on. If science wouldn't have been able to find objective truths, we couldn't build things based on those scientific findings.
Inventions exist, therefor knowledge of objective truths exists.
Without objective truth, we couldn't invent something with precision.
Quoting Anthony
And this isn't something I've said. Quite the opposite. If evidence exist, going through the scientific method, that would equal an objective truth in the end, as close as we can get to it in the parameters of our perception. The second best, is by deductive reasoning and logic reach conclusions that the collective also reaches. Example of that is theoretical physics, in which a lot of the theories and hypotheses doesn't have evidence, but instead deductive logic through math. Many do the same math problem to reach the same conclusion and others continue with duplication and if reaching the same conclusion, strengthens the objectiveness of the proposed truth. This is the core of what I said and the more that does this and comes to the same conclusion, the stronger that truth is in it's objectiveness. As I mentioned, it's more about probability than absolutes, because absolutes renders the term unpractical in language. If a conclusion has 99,999% probability of being an objective truth, that is and should be considered true objectiveness for human perception and the use of the term.
Yes, I see what you're getting at. :smile: :up: On the one hand, it is convenient and useful to know things that are consistent and reliable about the world. This is an unbiased view of the world. That's the mildest definition of objective that I can think of. And yet the other end of the spectrum has its attractions too. The hard-Objectivity that considers things that are absolutely certain, because they correspond exactly to Objective Reality. When we consider such things, we realise, as you implied in what you wrote, that there is little or nothing that humans can know with that absolute degree of certainty. Thinking along these lines teaches us something useful, I think, which is that the world, as we experience it, is an uncertain place. There is no certainty, for practical purposes.
So I have sympathy with what you're saying, but I also note that it is a sort of fudge, a sort of denial of uncertainty. Maybe because it's more comfortable? :chin:
We do? Why is that, do you think? Is a mild definition of objectivity really that useful, when it helps to convince us that there are certainties, when (from an exclusively and typically human point of view) there are few or none? I do see where you're coming from, but I wonder if we are accepting approximations that hide stuff that (maybe) ought to be more, er, visible? :chin:
One problem with a 'diluted' definition of objectivity is that you can say we have reached objective truth via science, and you mean that we have reached a conclusion which is fairly reliable and consistent, to the point that we can usefully use it to predict some aspect of the behaviour of the world. But someone else hears you, and understands from your words that science provides Objective access to Objective Reality. Of course, the latter is simply wrong. But your milder definition encourages this misunderstanding. I think this worries me more than any other part of the ages-old debate over objectivity. :chin:
Not at all :) I think I just feel the need for two levels of the word objective. I.e Absolute objectivity is not dependent on human perception, it exists regardless of our knowledge of it. As an example, we don't know what exists outside the border of the universe. Absolute objectivity challenge us to speculate as far as our minds can stretch on a subject and that is a healthy thing to have. However practical objectivity is what I consider the definition to use in direct opposition to subjectivity for something that, if reaching a practical objective truth, is acting in the sense that it is practical for both discussions and progression of society.
As an example; even though you could use Absolute objectivity to criticise Einsteins theory of relativity, saying that we really don't know of how it works, especially since the work of quantum physics do not apply well to working in symbios with his theory. There's a practical objectivity to Einstein's theory that when balanced against a subjective viewpoint, that disagree with his theory on the basis of only subjective belief, you could argue that Einstein reached an objective truth of the universe that is as close to objectivity that we could reach to at this time. So let's say you are "inventing" the GPS and you have two people arguing about Einsteins theory of relativity. One say that you need to make up for the difference in time-dilation between the earth surface and the GPS satellite in order to have a working GPS function, while the other argues that because no one could objectively say that Einstein was right, it isn't certain that his theory would affect the practical use of the GPS system.
It's clear which one will loose this debate, since we know that Einstein's theory needs to be applied to the GPS system in order to work. The person who argues for the theory say that it's an objective truth about how the universe works and in using the word objective he is challenging the subjective opinion of the other guy. He is using the practical definition of objectivity since the absolute objectivity of the person denying Einstein's theory doesn't have any practical use in any application.
Therefore, the different definitions should exist at the same time. One is for challenging our ideas through speculations we have a hard time proving, the other is for things we can probably prove and that has a practical use for our species.
Another example is that we should hold the discussion about A.I to a practical objectivity, since that opens up for necessary precautions and scientific progress in the field, while absolute objectivity points out that we can't know anything of the consequences of A.I. One is about speculating the ramifications of high level A.I, one is for preparing the world, the science and people for A.I. Both exist in opposition to subjectivity, but practical objectivity is what we use to define rational discoveries and results in opposition to subjective inaccuracies about the world.
I think both can exist at the same time. It's almost like hard determinism and soft determinism, one has more practical value, especially in terms of the justice system. Until the justice system gets upgraded to incorporate new scientific results about crime and punishment, soft determinism suggests that we are accountable for the crimes we commit. The absolute truth to the subject seems more likely to be hard determinism, but it's hard to put that into practice in this regard. So until we have a better system, the soft deterministic solution is to accept everything as causality, except our behaviour and free will.
Same goes for objectivity. We need a practical use of the word together with it's absolute counterpart. The absolute is more true, but unable to exist as a foundation for us in a practical sense.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
And it's a worry that i share with you. But even practical objectivity cannot become subjective, because it's the result of our best efforts to be objective in search for an answer. Using logic and scientific methods. Einstein didn't just invent his theory, he backed it up with logic but even that logic seems illogical at the quantum level, however he still pushed his theory to the level in which it is as objectively true as he could possible make it. So even if practical objectivity is more soft than the absolute, it's still unable to become a subjective opinion, since it needs evidence, logic and rational reasoning behind it.
As a term used in discussions, I think the practical use of objectivity in opposition to subjectivity, is for when someone presents a subjective opinion and you say it's not objective. What you mean is that the opinion hasn't gone through proper deductive or inductive procedures for it's conclusion, or it hasn't been tested in research or through pure logic, so you use the word objective to describe the opposite of what they provided. Even though it's not absolute, it's a way to use language to distinguish opinion from what can be described as the truth closest to our level of perception, i.e the objectivity that is practical for us as a species in our progression into the future.
Based on what language define it as. If there aren't clear basic definitions of the language we use, it becomes impossible to communicate or have a discourse about something.
Language evolve, but deconstructing words into oblivion just makes communication impossible.
Why isn't objectivity the polar opposite of subjectivity in your perspective?
For me you can't be objective only through a collective, since the collective can be just as corrupted as the subjective. Even more so, the collective can be so corrupted that individuals subjectivity gets indoctrinated into the collective delusion. Practical objectivity, the one which we can define has it's roots in logic and scientific methods, are still not through a transpersonal perspective, since you on an individual level use deduction, induction and proper methods of science to reach a conclusion that has stripped away as much as you can on an individual level, of your subjectivity. It's a process and way of thinking that cannot include subjective thinking, but even then it can be influenced by the individual, that's why we have peer reviews and why we combine findings and research with others. Only when this is done can we reach practical objectivity.
If two people gets to know the definition of a word that is wrong and they both gets the task of defining that word, they will not have an objective conclusion just by combining their subjective opinion of the definition of the word. But if they did research on that word, asked what other people define it as and combine their individual research, they would reach the correct definition of that word and make it objective. It's the process that makes something objective, both on an individual scale and on a collective scale, combining the two makes it even stronger.
As I mentioned before, I view it as probability. You can measure practical objectivity by the probability of it's objectiveness. Scientific findings that have been used in inventions, that has been tested over and over and that shows the same result over and over, with every scientist who does research, coming to the same conclusion over and over, makes for a high probability of practical objectivity.
Then there's the question of objectivity and subjectivity for something impersonal, something that isn't a human agent of perception. A single computer can have a subjective handling of code, but when combined with other systems, fine-tune it into a more correct way since being tested through many types of systems. Therefore, objectivity and subjectivity does not demand human agents to function.
Subjectivity and objectivity seems closer to be about singular perspective vs combined perspective. The singular cannot show the entire truth, but the objective can and with higher probability of objectiveness, the higher level of probability for it being true outside of our perception and anyone's perception.
Quoting Blue Lux
But that can easily spiral down into nonsense. I get what you're implying, but this is the same as the difference I described between absolute and practical objectivity. If you put how we define words and language to the hypothetical extreme, you undermine any practical use for language as a means of spreading knowledge and progressing understanding. In order for people to actually make progress in both knowledge and practical applications, it's better to have clear definitions of our language, so that communication isn't getting in the way of understanding. Just accepting the extreme that it's impossible to truly communicate true meaning, is not practical and has no application. Its interesting in an academic way, but if we are talking about objectivity and subjectivity, undermining the entire language by saying that trying to define "objectivity" more clearly in language, is futile, makes it almost impossible to continue searching for a good answer.
This is why I think it's good to find clear definitions and if a definition is so unclear that it kickstarts discussions like these, there's clearly the need for better definitions of the concept.
It is not that a person is objective through a collective. An objectivity is not merely the collective understanding. It is an internal negation of subjectivity for the collective.
These conclusions of science, for instance, that an atom exists or that a color exists or whatever... These conclusions do not make objectivity any different. They are still transpersonal abstractions.
And objectivity does include subjective thinking, but the truth of what would be something subjectly, which is the only place a truth could possibly be for "Dasein is the foundation of truth and essentially is in the truth" (Heidegger), is transformed into a representation ONLY SAID to encompass that subjective validity. The fact is that there are no facts, only interpretations. And I agree with Socrates that the only true knowing is knowing that you know nothing.
Quoting Christoffer
Sure, but this definition is still impoverished of meaning, because it is by virtue of so many configurations and alterations; of a reference point that does not encompass the truth of a subjective meaning. Regardless of everything, a word will always mean something different for you and I and everyone else. And the same is with experiences. It doesn't matter what the objective establishment of anything consists of; love, orgasms, colors, sounds, a poem, gold, silver, lead, God, Dr Pepper, medieval alchemy, etc. will always have different subjective associations attached to them. It doesn't matter that science can objectively define what taste is... Taste will always be subjective and nothing will ever suffice to replace its truth. It does not matter that science can objectively define Mercury or wax... When I melt the wax and it is still wax... No objective explanation can ever give me that experience and that continuity.
The objective says nothing about truth. It merely acts as truth. It is a transpersonal truth, which is absolutely meaningless. Would you die for these supposed objective truths?
Quoting Christoffer
Objectivity is an illusion... As is subjectivity. There is no world of truth that we are incapable of ascertaining alone... Furthermore, there is no truth that can only be ascertained by means of an objectivity. There is no subjectivity trying to find the truth OUT THERE SOMEWHERE. The perception of something is not just a mere perception. The experiencing of the world is the world revealing itself in truth. The experiencing of the world is the experiencing of the essence of the world... The essence of the world is no longer to be understood as hidden.
It's an internal negation of subjectivity for the individual, but an objective fact filtered through human perception demands more observers than one and that all those individual observers try and disregard their own subjectivity. The conclusions of science has consequences for physical objects behaving in a certain way. If an objective fact about atoms has been concluded, it predicts behaviour of physical matter in certain situations and if the behaviour acts according to predictions based on objective facts, then they cannot be subjective and is not related to any subjective perception. The physical world is what it is, with or without us, but in order for us to understand it we need objective conclusions that relate to the physical world and can predict it. Those conclusions can never be subjective, therefore objectivity is something outside of our perception. This is what I call absolute objectivity and practical objectivity is the understanding of this through human perception that comes as close to the absolute as possible. If you can predict how matter is going to behave, you are acting on facts about the world that exists outside of your subjective perception.
Quoting Blue Lux
And this is what absolute objectivity is about. Why I'm doing the distinction between absolute and practical is that if you cannot accept a measurement of objectivity that is practical for humans and you only have subjectivity on one hand and the absolutely unreachable for our perception and knowledge-absolute objectivity on the other, then we can only exist within subjectivity. But in order for science and communication to work practically for us, we need a measurement that balance our subjectivity with what we perceive as objectivity. Without practical objectivity, everyone could dismiss everyone else's argument for being subjective, regardless of how close to facts about the world the are.
If you prove, through proper research and with others checking and replicating your research, a fact about the universe and the consequence is that this fact predicts how things behave, you have reached a practical objectivity. You cannot ever be sure that anything is real, however, that fact, that conclusions is not subjectivity by the definition and general understanding of the word. We call it objective since it predicts and behaves according to the world that exists outside of our perception and will long after the subjective viewpoint has died.
Quoting Blue Lux
Experiences of how we perceive something cannot always be used to further our understanding of why it is or how it can be used. How you perceive wax and experience wax cannot be used for when you invent a new material using facts about the molecular structure of wax in combination with another substance. So it does matter if science can explain it, since all the technology, all the quality of life that we have around objects that humans have invented is based on the understanding of how these objects work. The practical objective understanding of the world, makes people able to form it. Your experience of wax is irrelevant for the definition of objectivity in that regard. If you were a molecular chemist, you would still experience wax through your subjective emotions and opinions, but you wouldn't use that for molecular chemistry with that wax, you would use what we objectively know about the molecular structure of wax.
Quoting Blue Lux
You are still talking about absolute objectivity, not the definition of practical objectivity that I'm trying to argue for here. Practical objectivity isn't meaningless since it's a form of definition that makes us balance our concept of subjectivity with something that has reduced or erased subjectivity. To die for objective truths is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with the definition of it. That gravity pulls objects of great mass closer to each other does not care for me or my experience and my experience or subjective emotions cannot dismiss that gravity exists within practical objective understanding of it. I cannot die for something that just is, regardless of my existence or not. Gravity will not end when I die and will not care for if I die, it will still be there and it's an objective truth through the lens of practical objectivity. Absolute objectivity states that we cannot know that gravity is real, because we cannot know if this world is truly real, or the universe or anything. This form of absolutes is meaningless and that is why I'm measuring objectivity in two forms, one is practical for our understanding and progression as humans, the other is academic and meaningless for most arguments.
Quoting Blue Lux
And this is absolute objectivity, which I do not dispute, I'm arguing for a measurement of objectivity that is practical for us as humans, since absolute objectivity is in most regards meaningless for us.
Woah woah woah slow down...
An objective fact filtered through human subjectivity... No... The subjectivity would be the fact: there is no objective fact.
Furthermore, an objectivity is not a disregarding of subjectivity but a labeling of it as bereft of a social utility.
Quoting Christoffer
Supposedly...
Quoting Christoffer
Not only is the implicated non-sequitur, the implier is wrong. Predicting the world and the events in the world is based on subjective experience, not an objectivity. I know the sun will come up tomorrow not because of an objectivity but because of something that can be understood by consciousness (of) the world. Rendering 'subjectivity' incapable is absurd.
Not that there even is a subjectivity...
Quoting Christoffer
You call it matter. I call it experience of the world. These are atop two completely different, incommensurable epistemologies... And I think the epistemology that deals with 'matter' is exclusionary and devoid of human meaning.
Quoting Christoffer
Or just throw into the trashcan this idea of subjectivity versus objectivity...
Quoting Christoffer
Socrates was not talking about not knowing anything about an objectivity. True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing... Knowing nothing... Not not knowing anything... But knowing the truth of being, of consciousness; and knowing everything else is an illusion--all that is truly known 'IS' nothing.
Quoting Christoffer
It is called objective because it more so resembles an object of our perception that is SEEMINGLY independent and representing some hidden being that is incapable of being apprehended by consciousness. This is a lie.
It is called objectivity in order to denote a transpersonal reference point by which a mundane authority can materialize.
This authority is meaningless.
The goal should be an interchangeable consciousness realizing that conscious is (of) the world.
What can be known by a consciousness transcends any representation of what is known, and has primacy over these representations.
For instance... Those objectivity-ists say that perhaps there is some objective meaning and conflate meaning with purpose or vice versa saying that the purpose of life is to reproduce. This is an absolute disgrace to human intelligence. Why? Because it labels subjectivity as insufficient with regard to an absolute authority.
Quoting Christoffer
No... Objectivity is a representation. It is secondary to experience. It is a replacing of experience for the more, perhaps, 'manageable.' But there is absolutely nothing more manageable than finding one's own existential meaning and priority in life, as opposed to becoming some scientific dilettante seeking absolutely nothing.
The greatest scientific discoveries were influenced by an interest in one's own experience, not by the objective classification of what is real as opposed to what is not.
Quoting Christoffer
This would be impossible by virtue of the definition of what would be a subjectivity.
But again, I do not like this dualism Descartes has so cleverly coerced people into unconsciously adopting.
Quoting Christoffer
Why keep the word objectivity?
This is a magic trick, that appears to fool educated scientists, who what to believe, what they want to believe. The magic trick is based on short term versus long term thinking. When they say this was the 5th warmest summer on record, they are not talking about the 5th warmest overt the 5 billion year history of the earth They are only talking about the last 130 years. Where would this 5th warmest summer in 130 years, rate on terms of 5 billion years? We don't have enough data to say for certain.
An analogy is a college student thinking about the big party that night. He is not thinking about the major exam in a few days later. If his focus is on the immediate present, his reality will become optimization for the present. However, this may not be optimized for the future.
If he is only thinking of the party, then party to you puke, may seem optimized based on that narrow time scale. But if he added more days to his timeline, from party to major exam in a few days, the party is not seen the same way. The 130 years of direct science data collection lives in the moment, and sees what is optimized for that moment in time. I agree with their conclusion based on short sightedness but not in terms of the long view.
Climate scientist may be experts in their field, but that are layman when it comes to the brain and mind. They are not experts at seeing through magic tricks that use time illusions. None of the computer models are predicting with accuracy, because their assumption are short term. They don't assume 5 billion years of detain the past and future.
Here is some interesting data that should have revolutionized earth and climate science. Are you aware that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface? The core of the earth is like a giant engine that is pulling the mantle and crust. This changes everything, yet all the experts seem to prefer to ignore it, since it means a changing of the guard, since all experts become students again. earth's core rotates faster than the surface
The current theory that the rotation of the earth began during its formation and continues to exist due to no fraction in space, was an illusion, that is still being taught. The core observation changes everything we know about the earth and climate science. This is a huge wild card. However, you will not find it in any computer models since the science swamp does not know how to include it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The science swamp is not about truth but maintaining the machine.
I am a development scientist who enjoys the challenge. To help integrate this new discovery, I came uno other data that was generated at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. This data was not related per se, but was connected to the extreme phases of water. They conducted experiments where they heated and pressurize water to extreme conditions to see what happens. This is done with explosions that will generate extreme pressure and temperature pulses and the water measured.
As it turns out, at the earth science consensus conditions of temperature and pressure attributed to the deep earth crust, the mantle, the outer core and the core of the earth, water turns out to exhibit very specific phases at the conditions in each zone. In other words, the layers of the inner earth suggest that water is continuous from the atmosphere, to the oceans, to crust, and all the way to inside the core. The core engines impacts climate, weather and the ocean via the continuity of water. This is the future.
At the pressures of the upper mantle, water exists as a super ionic phase. This is nasty stuff, where hydrogen protons and oxygen separate. This phase will explode like TNT if subjected to pressure drops. This phase of water helps the crust to move and lift.
The sun evaporates water, which adds positive charge to the atmosphere. The iron core of the earth is rich in electrons. The sun, via solar heating, sets up potential to the iron core. This is possible due to the continuity of the water to the core. Essentially the sun is driving the water to rust the iron core, releasing the energy that drives the engine.
And I understand why you think so. But I'm still bothered, not specifically by you, but by our (i.e. humans) general tendency to use vocabulary that, er, enhances the confidence we have in the things we (think we) know. We express our educated guesses - and this is what they are - using words like "objective", "certain", "definite". And we use euphemisms like probability, so that our guesses will sound like they're better founded than a more truthful "guess" might imply. We even say "is", which does not allow for any uncertainty, instead of (for example) "seems". Our need for certainty is clearly a deep-seated thing with us humans! :wink:
If you're interested in this, there's a lot of stuff on the net. I especially like this quote, from an article about E-prime: "Take the phrase, "My brother is lazy." It seems clear, but Korzybski and Bourland would say it deceives: it implies certainty and objectivity, when in reality it expresses an opinion." Here's the full article.
Yes, I quibble about such things quite a lot. :wink: But I'm not just nit-picking. :up: The terms we use frame what we say. Pollsters know that the answer to a poll depends largely on how the question is phrased. Simply using a more confident selection of words makes our subject matter appear more credible and reliable. Unjustifiably, IMO.
Quoting Christoffer
I also wonder about your use of the term "subjectivity". I wonder what you mean by it? And most of all, I wonder why you say several times that subjectivity must be opposed, expressing it in a way that says any sane and reasonable person would agree without a second thought.
We subjectivists meet in dark and secluded caverns, as we must, away from decent people. And some of us worship the Unholy Binary - Eris and Cthulhu - but do we really deserve this type of treatment? :wink: What have we done to you? :smile: Seriously: what do you mean by "subectivist"?
Everything other than the mind and that which is mental. The list would be vast and would consist of numerous objects such as tables, chairs, trees, rocks, stars, and planets.
Quoting Anthony
You can't possibly know that, and I don't find that a convincing proposition.
Quoting Anthony
That's hilarious. What nonsense reasoning has lead you to the absurd conclusion that you'd need to turn yourself into a rock?
I think most of us pick this up from context. But never mind. :wink: I wonder if it's the way you're choosing to look at it? Because I can't make sense of this at all: Quoting Anthony
Can you pick this apart for me? You seem to say that existence depends on being observed. So if you look at me, I exist, but when you blink ... I disappear? :chin:
Do you not think that it's a bit silly to judge the possibility of [i]human[/I] causation on a timescale of [i]the entire history of Earth[/I]? After all, our ancestors have only been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago, civilisation as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialisation started in the earnest only in the 1800s [1], whereas Earth has been around for about [i]4.543 billion years[/I] [2]. It therefore shouldn't be at all surprising that it would be the first time in the history of Earth that humans caused Earth to warm, given that that would have been impossible for a period spanning billions of years, and then, even since our existence, our contributions would have been on a much less significant scale until at least the last few hundred years.
As an analogy, say you saw a bird you never saw before. You know birds fairly well and think this is a new species. You wish to gain credit for this discovery, since it will make you popular and open new doors. Would it be wise to first do research in the deep archives, to see if this bird is already in the catalog? Or should you sell it as new, to those who like to chase the latest fad, and/or know how to capitalize on fads?
In the case of the bird, deeper research in the dusty stacks may indicate that this bird was already in the catalog, but was thought to be extinct 100 years ago. Your discovery is still important, but not what you thought it was, originally.
In 2005 a team of Scientists from Lamont Lab at Columbia University discovered that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface. This was never know before, and was a quantum step to better understanding how the earth works.
The problem is, 14 years later, the earth sciences have not kept pace with this major discovery. It is sort of on the back burner, since it changes all the current theory that is taken as gospel. Politics is preventing the system from changing, since the experts may not end up as the experts, since we will need to revise almost everything. This is young man's sport, or sport for wily old veterans with nothing to lose and everything to gain. The science swamp is not doing the right thing.
Based on the old theory consensus, before this discovery, the current scenario makes reasonable sense; extinct birded revisited. But based on the needed new earth science, that can include the latest core rotation data, this is not so certain. For the core to rotate and outpace the surface means huge amounts of energy; friction and heat, that is not in any consensus climate equation.
The history of science is full of changes that are avoided to maintain a status quo; Galileo. The media and political hype is there for sales pitch, to distract from the needed change.