Is objectivity possible?

[sandandfoam]

I was reading the view that mathematical entities such as numbers are not independent of us,that they are constructed in the act of understanding them as evidenced by their properties which perfectly mirror our cognition of them. I would have always thought of numbers as being one of the most objective ways of describing something.This makes me wonder if objectivity is an illusion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do a search on 'intersubjective verifiability'.

 

[Random]

Objective Reality is merely the difference between YOU and the Program.

 

[Willamena]

I was reading the view that mathematical entities such as numbers are not independent of us,that they are constructed in the act of understanding them as evidenced by their properties which perfectly mirror our cognition of them. I would have always thought of numbers as being one of the most objective ways of describing something.This makes me wonder if objectivity is an illusion?

"Objectivity" is not independent of us; it's one of the perspectives that we use to examine the world. Anyone who suggests it is absent because it is not independent of us has built himself a strawman, or does not understand what perspectives are.

Numbers are defined objectively. By us.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Objectivity is relative to our abilities (ie, the ability to suspend bias and prejudice), as well as our various traditions (such as language, reason, or the scientific method).

 

[harleydavidson]

to stephen,,hi steve,,replying to your post of 12/5 re numbers brings us to an interesting idea. Numbers have no real existence of themselves!,,when we say "three" what do we mean? the number after two ,and before four,thats one view.If I say visualize three ,you might ask me three of what? You see three exists as something,, three oranges,three elephants or three of something.Aristotle and Acquinas said these things were called "accident",,they had no existence in themselves ,but existed in something else. Colors like red , shapes like round etc are other examples of "accidents." "Numbers mirror our cognition of them,,",,mabey in some way.Dr. Geo. Gamow the noted physist wrote a book ,,"one ,two,three,infinity",,the title was based on an african tribe whose numbering system only went to three,,after that was infinity! So much for objectivity........harley davidson

 

[tomspug]

Ha, yes. Since numbers are a method WE use to describe logic and order, it is in fact, completely synthetic. However, math is an invention that proves the existance of order, in the way that science labs prove the existence of certain principles of science and physics.

I think the important thing to realize is that all human observation is simply that, an observation. This is why I think that post-modernism is rubbish. The only way a philosophy, point of view, or belief can be true is through direct experience, observation, and contemplation. You can't just make up your own beliefs without any real justification for them. That's like coming up with your own math and logic without testing it. You really can't take anything for granted, but you can't take NOTHING for granted either. I hope that made sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., math is an invention that proves the existance of order, in the way that science labs prove the existence of certain principles of science and physics.

Good grief ...

 

[Somkid]

Yes, objectivity is very possible. Although I am a Buddhist (which if you didn't know we are atheists) I teach philosophy and religion and I am very objective as long as the argument is logical and has valid points. It is very rear for me to have a Christian, Muslim or Jew in my class as this country is 95% Buddhist but it has happened and I don't think they were the least bit uncomfortable as we do not attack their belief we only show them ways to improve on it or how to argue from an educated view point and with reason rather than quoting a religious book.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... we only show them ways to improve on it or how to argue from an educated view point and with reason rather than quoting a religious book.

How very good of you.

 

[Fluffy]

Intersubjective verification provides a subjective view of the subjective views of others. That it goes some way to overcoming the dangers of subjectivity does not mean that it goes any way towards overcoming subjectivity itself. It should not be viewed as aiming at objectivity but merely at the least risky subjective view. The subjective constraint is enforced by perception and so no amount of perceiving can overcome it.

 

[Willamena]

Intersubjective verification provides a subjective view of the subjective views of others. That it goes some way to overcoming the dangers of subjectivity does not mean that it goes any way towards overcoming subjectivity itself. It should not be viewed as aiming at objectivity but merely at the least risky subjective view. The subjective constraint is enforced by perception and so no amount of perceiving can overcome it.

Why would you want to overcome subjectivity?

 

[tomspug]

Good grief ...

Aw, I guess Jay's not a fan of Isaac Newton... or Aristotle... or the Enlightenment. That's too bad.

 

[Willamena]

Aw, I guess Jay's not a fan of Isaac Newton... or Aristotle... or the Enlightenment. That's too bad.

I think he just has the same problem with the concept of "proof" as did Isaac Newton... or Aristotle... or the Enlightenment.