Are objectivity and truth the same?
Objectivity is a distinctively human trait, as only human beings have the capacity for objectivity. It involves the ability to shift perspective, and no one has ever attributed this to animals. Objectivity requires us to stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny and judgement. Above all, it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our needs and desires
Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. One can arrive at true theories in a non-objective way. Indeed, one can hit upon the truth purely at random. Conversely, objective theories are not necessarily true. The history of science provides plenty of examples of the objective formulation and defence of theories that have turned out to be false and have been replaced by other theories. Objectivity is no guarantee of truth, any more than truth can only be the outcome of objectivity.
The problem with thinking of objectivity exclusively in general terms, as elimination of prejudice or bias, is that it encourages an absolutist view of objectivity. The prime example of such an absolutist conception is the view from nowhere.
There are two problems with this conception. First, the idea that we are being guided towards *the* truth is wholly misleading. What we are being guided towards are the best answers to the questions that we pose. If you deploy objective procedures in answering a misconceived, confused or misleading question, it is highly likely that the answer will get you nowhere.
Second, any attempt to assimilate objectivity and truth faces the difficulty that they behave in different ways. Note in particular that objectivity comes in degrees. One theory can be more objective than another, but a theory cannot be truer than another.
Whereas truth is absolute and does not come in degrees, objectivity *only* comes in degrees. The idea of absolute objectivity is a misconception. encouraged by thinking of it as a view from nowhere.
What we are seeking to do in imposing standards of objectivity in our judgments in modern science is to identify and separate the informative and the uninformative, with a view to producing reliable results.
Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. One can arrive at true theories in a non-objective way. Indeed, one can hit upon the truth purely at random. Conversely, objective theories are not necessarily true. The history of science provides plenty of examples of the objective formulation and defence of theories that have turned out to be false and have been replaced by other theories. Objectivity is no guarantee of truth, any more than truth can only be the outcome of objectivity.
The problem with thinking of objectivity exclusively in general terms, as elimination of prejudice or bias, is that it encourages an absolutist view of objectivity. The prime example of such an absolutist conception is the view from nowhere.
There are two problems with this conception. First, the idea that we are being guided towards *the* truth is wholly misleading. What we are being guided towards are the best answers to the questions that we pose. If you deploy objective procedures in answering a misconceived, confused or misleading question, it is highly likely that the answer will get you nowhere.
Second, any attempt to assimilate objectivity and truth faces the difficulty that they behave in different ways. Note in particular that objectivity comes in degrees. One theory can be more objective than another, but a theory cannot be truer than another.
Whereas truth is absolute and does not come in degrees, objectivity *only* comes in degrees. The idea of absolute objectivity is a misconception. encouraged by thinking of it as a view from nowhere.
What we are seeking to do in imposing standards of objectivity in our judgments in modern science is to identify and separate the informative and the uninformative, with a view to producing reliable results.
Comments (18)
They are really in the same kind of category of concepts. Objectivity would be a state or an outlook or perhaps even an unfolding of the use of certain tools over time. Truth seems to me as more to do with propositions.Quoting Matias
Yes.Quoting Matias
I don't think this is correct. Newtonians models were less true, ultimately, than Einstein's but they are still also quite true and are used for many things, given scale issues. They now know that ganglia are involved in intelligence and cognition also, not just neurons, but theories that put that all in terms of neurons are not completely false, they just were incomplete compared to current ones.
If you were correct then one could never improve a theory.
It's impossible to "stand back" from perceptions, beliefs and opinions. It's impossible to judge anything in a way that conflicts with all of your needs and desires.
And the notion that we can and should stand back from perceptions, beliefs and opinions, that we can and should judge things in ways that conflict with all of our needs and desires are themselves beliefs/opinions/desires that rely on perceptions and other beliefs.
I can assure you that it is possible. It is commonly called "critical thinking".
Some people practice it ( I am among them) and some are even good at it.
So under critical thinking, there are no perceptions or beliefs?
If you told me that you are never doing this, I would not believe this for a second.
You question your beliefs, from the framework of other beliefs, perceptions, etc. You're not "standing back" from perceptions and beliefs. And there's nothing objective about it.
How do you call it when you hold a belief and then it occurs to you "I could be biased or prejudiced or simply mistaken"?
"I think it is water over there, but it could be a mirage"; "I think that Abidjan is the capital of Ghana - or is it Accra?"
Or do you never doubt or question any of your beliefs, judgements, perceptions?
No. Merely explaining that it's not possible to "stand back" from your beliefs and perceptions.
Quoting Matias
I don't have a special term for it. The point is simply that "I could be biased or prejudiced or simply mistaken" is itself a belief, a type of bias, as is the notion that one should perform this sort of examination, etc.
Quoting Matias
Of course I do. I just don't pretend that I can be non-biased, objective, etc.
What is your point? That "to doubt" is also a "belief". No, it is not. You can hold a belief ("Accra is the capital of Ghana") and then you can doubt it (without replacing it by another belief), simply because you are not sure about this very belief and you are aware of this doubt. The doubt itself is not a belief. And if you in your private universe call a doubt a belief, so be it, I am not going to discuss this because it is not relevant.
What is relevant is that human beings - and as far as we know this capacity is unique to Homo sapiens; animals cannot do this trick - are able to reflect on their perceptions and beliiefs, because human cognition is a multi-tier affair: I have a perception or a thought and then - on a "higher" level so to speak - I can relate to this thought/belief/perception. If you are not able to do this, if you are condemned to take all your perceptions and beliefs at face value, I'd say that this a severe deficiency. I guess that people like Trump are also unable to question their beliefs: every idea or belief that pops up in the mind of Donald "The stable genius" Trump is relevant and true and even brilliant. No doubts nowhere
You do not pretend that you can be non-biased, objective, etc...? Neither do I. That is why I distinguish objectivity and truth in my OP. Objectivity is not a state of affairs ("I know the truth") but it is an intellectual QUEST fuelled by my knowledge that I am biased and fallibe. If you say "I am subjective and everything is subjective and that 's it" - there will be no quest, no progress of knowledge, no science. The moment you decide to try to find out about X, you are trying to be objective, because your intention is directed towards an object.
If you just remain in your own subjectivity then you'll never find out anything.
Some people enjoy wallowing in their ignorance.
I type my points. The point of every sentence I type is just what that sentence says. I don't see the utility of typing something that's not my point--why beat around the bush?
At any rate, "I'm not sure if Accra is the capital of Ghana," "I don't think that Accra is the capital of Ghana," etc. are beliefs.
Again, yes, we're able to reflect on beliefs. That's not something objective that we're doing, and it's not something non-biased, non-belief-based, etc. that we're doing.
Quoting Matias
No I'm not, because I realize that people can't be objective. That doesn't amount to not wanting to reflect on, not wanting to test, etc. beliefs. I just realize that there's nothing objective about it.
No, objectivity and truth are not the same.
Objectivity is a judgement of negation, in which content is given (no opinion about objects has intrinsic validity); truth is a judgement of affirmation, in which content is irrelevant (if this then that necessarily).
The former is an empirical judgement grounded by intuition (if from sense there is some object), the latter is an a priori judgement grounded in understanding (wherein a cognition must conform to its object).
Objectivity is a judgement of quality by practical reason; truth is a judgement on relation by pure reason.
Objectivity is a rational inclination, truth is a rational construction.
Not even close.......... it would seem.
The problem is that your sentences do not say anything that could in any sense be considered valid in the contect of my OP.
You say that there is no objectivity, and the only "reason" you seem to give - after all that is the point you keep mentioning - is that all we have are beliefs. Even a "?" attached to a belief is a belief. And because beliefs are inherently subjective, objectivity is a mirage.
Does that in any way invalidate my arguments in the OP? No. You are just deliberately misinterpreting them.
If it's all beliefs from top to bottom: what is the difference between these two beliefs?
(a) Grinded rhino horn is a remedy for erectile dysfunction
(b) AIDS is caused by the HI virus
Quoting Mww
I simply haven't the foggiest what this could mean :-)
Think of subjective statements as value statements and objective statements as non-value statements. Subjective statements contain terms like, "good", "bad", "best", "worst", "right", "wrong", etc., while objective statements lack these terms. Subjective statements are basically a shortcut, or misuse, of language that projects one's preferences on objects - as if the noun in the statement possessed the quality that the subjective terms refer to rather than referring to the user's own preferences.
Quoting Matias
Can you give an example?
Quoting Matias
This is the problem of knowledge, not anything to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity.
Quoting Matias
What are we to make of this statement and all of your other statements, then? Are you making a truth claim here - that the idea that we are being guided towards the truth is wholly misleading? Are you misleading us with your statements, or are you trying to refer to some real state-of-affairs that is true from an alternate perspective - like one outside of everyone's minds (a view from nowhere) and looking at all minds objectively as if they all had the same property of being misled towards the truth?
Wouldn't it make more sense and be more accurate to say "We can only arrive at the truth after making all possible mistakes."?
Quoting Matias
What is the difference between the "best answers" and the "truth"?
I don't see it as a requirement that you have a particular opinion about how my comments relate to your initial post.
Quoting Matias
I didn't say that. I said that we can't be objective.
Quoting Matias
As I've explained a couple times now, we can't actually "stand back" from our perceptions, beliefs, etc. You can't do that any more than you can escape your own shadow.
Quoting Matias
There are a lot of differences. But one of them isn't that one is "objective" while the other isn't.
That answers come in grades. There are good, better and best answers, and we can strive to refine, to improve our answers, whereas truth is all-or-nothing. That is the reason why people who like a clear-cut world-view like to talk about "truth".
Scientists prefer to talk about "growing evidence" or "sufficient evidence". Objectivity is not a state we can reach, but it has more to do with a regulative idea, which is unattainable but serves as a guiding principle for all those who honestly (!) what to find out about X (whereby X is the "object".)
That is the point that @Terrapin Station refuses to understand: Objectivity is nothing that we "are", it is an attitude, something we strive to be.
Objectivity splits into two kinds:
Epistemic objectivity refers to knowledge. Knowledge is different to truth.
Ontological objectivity refers to existence. Existence is different to truth.
So it's not the same.