the difference being that I acknowledge inhereted subjectivity
Your position: Subjectivity interfering with an otherwise objective (fact, not opinion) process through bias contaminates the rest of it with that subjectivity, making it all subjective (opinion) and no longer Objective (not opinion).
My position: Subjectivity interfering with an otherwise objective (fact, not opinion) process through bias contaminates it with error, reducing its accuracy and/or precision, but does not transmute an objective issue into opinion- it remains objective (not opinion), but just less accurate. It does become less objective (unbiased), but not less objective (not opinion).
Your position also fails to acknowledge that bias produced by humans or by an unexpected magnetic field influencing mechanical measurements (also a bias) is not fundamentally different- they are all sources of experimental error. And experimental error is merely inaccuracy. Human bias has no special magical quality that any uncontrolled environmental error lacks.
Your position would only be consistent with the non-existence of objectivity anywhere- No science could possibly be objective (there is always minor interference from bias somewhere).
My position is only accurate, in that is reflects word usage, and gives credence to the understanding that scientific methodology creates more objective (less biased) results, which are objective (not opinions), and not subjective (opinions).
where you seem to suggest it can be completely removed
I did not say that.
It is only opinion while it is in the brain or the respective memetic form. When it fraudulently influences real world collection of objective data, it merely becomes error. Indistinct from any other error. It does not carry a magical quality simply because it arose from a human being instead of malfunctioning lab equipment. Error is error.
Error can not be entirely removed. It doesn't matter where it came from.
This whole thing strikes me somewhat as the difference between copyleft and public domain in copyright law.
five point scales, [...] which becomes the basis for 'objectified' subjective data, it is true that it is not truly objective
No, it's objective that the person answered "1" or "3" or whatever they answered.
The answer is the answer- that is objective data.
Whether or not the answer reflects their true beliefs (they could have been lying, or misunderstood the question, etc.) is not a question of subjectivity, but a question of accuracy.
Self-reporting is considered inherently inaccurate to a degree, because humans are bad at converting their feelings into numbers consistently even when they are being honest.
That makes the results inaccurate- not subjective.
while attempts can indeed be made to objectify things they remain 'as inherently a matter of opinion' - absolutely I do think that and that is no misunderstanding.
Then something is broken somewhere :areyoucra
Have you ever heard the term "Objective Opinion"?
It's using "Objective" as the first definition I mentioned: Unbiased, or a low amount of bias.
That is to say, something can be "Objective subjectivity".
That's not an oxymoron.
The second definition of objective would be an oxymoron- that which is not an opinion. Luckily, experimental bias isn't an opinion- it's a source of mere error.
I agree they are objective, since the opinions of those within that system do not alter let alone comprise its underlying characteristics
The same is true for the system I advanced.
If you think it is not, then that is our argument.
even you have attempted to incorporate people's opinion on torture within your metric
No, I didn't. I pointed out this misunderstanding on your part earlier too.
Opinion does not affect the makeup of the goal or the Heuristic at all.
This suggests a pretty complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying morality is.
Let me ask you a question:
Can you design an objective heuristic to maximize the production of Chocolate on this planet given a certain propaganda budget?
If not, what CAN you design an objective Heuristic to do?
Science is a Heuristic; do you deny its objectivity?
they were designed (From Dictionary.com Design - 3. to intend for a definite purpose - Purpose - 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal) to achieve desired goals... desires are inescapably 'a matter of opinion'.
The 'Purpose' or the 'Desired result' is the Goal.
You even admitted the goal can be objective.
This sounds very much like the argument from design against evolution. Manipulating definitions to try to prove something that does not follow logically.
An equation is not, and never can be, an opinion without holding an explicit opinion as a value. People can have opinions about equations. People can create equations wherein the choice of values are influenced by opinion- but unless they insert an opinion as a value in the equation itself, the equation is not an opinion.
Here's an equation which is an opinion:
Bob: "Sweetness / Bitterness = Deliciousness"
Sally: "Saltiness / Sourness = Deliciousness"
What is Delicious is an opinion.
Here's an equation which is not an opinion:
Bob: "Sweetness / Bitterness = Deliciousness to Bob"
Sally: "Sweetness / Bitterness = Deliciousness to Bob"
Bob: "Saltiness / Sourness = Deliciousness to Sally"
Sally: "Saltiness / Sourness = Deliciousness to Sally"
What is Delicious to Bob is a fact, and not an opinion.
What is Delicious to Sally is a fact, and not an opinion.
If I were doing the former, then you would be correct- if I incorporated an opinion, then the Heuristic would be subjective.
However, I am only doing the latter: I am incorporating facts.
If you don't understand that what is Delicious is an opinion, while what is delicious to Bob is a matter of fact (about which he might lie on a survey, or answer inconsistently, but still fact despite the poor method of collecting it) then there is no possible communication here.
There is no way to differentiate between such metrics as being inherently more moral,
There is: Logic.
design involves exercising opinion to effect the nature of the heuristic obtained.
I already said, clearly, that such an occasion would never be permitted- that would be an egregious violation.
You have asserted this twice, and this is the second time I am explicitly denying it.
I want to make it amply clear: The very notion that opinion of the morality of the result should be used to affect the nature of the heuristic itself and 'fine-tune' it is offensive and morally repulsive.
That would be a clear violation of the objectivity of morality.
Failing to select science where you have the opportunity to do so, is always because of hubris or apathy; therefore it is immoral because the outcomes are sub-optimal.
Not quite.
Definition: A relative Moral failing (v.s opportunity) --> Evil (This is pretty much tautological)
We agree: Rejection of science results in the suboptimal efforts towards a goal.
Given a goal of morality, Rejection of science --> suboptimal efforts towards moral goal --> relative moral failing --> Evil.
Side note:
Who do we blame for that Evil? I don't know. We have to follow the cause.
Evil --> Moral failing --> Suboptimal efforts --> Rejection of science --> ???
What caused rejection of science?
Apathy:
Can we end there, and just consider Apathy to be the fault of the individual?
Yes: It's the individual's fault due to Apathy.
No --> What caused the apathy?
Hubris:
Can we end there, and just consider Hubris to be the fault of the individual?
Yes: It's the individual's fault due to Hubris.
No --> What caused the Hubris?
Something else:
Can we end there, and just consider whatever it is to be the fault of the individual?
Yes: It's the individual's fault due to whatever.
No --> What caused that something else?
I don't have a problem with there being other causes. Hubris and Apathy are just the chief causes I have identified.
When I have a bite mark on my arm, I imagine it is probably from a mosquito. it could have been a spider. Either way, whatever bit me, it itches (and that is the important point).
- > The exclusion of all other potential reasons for action/inaction; that you have identified 'three relevant dimensions' does not mean that there are only three!
Very true, and I would gladly consider others given evidence.
I believe in the Strong force, the Electroweak force, and Gravity.
I'm very ready to believe in more forces given any hint that they exist. It would excite me to discover a new force, if anything. I'm open to them: I invite them into my heart.
Fear of change, Fear of uncertainty etc for example would be another factor;
Fear is a matter of relative apathy.
I'm afraid of there being a scorpion in my shoe when I put it on to leave the house, but if I let that stop me from going anywhere, I couldn't have been very invested in my endeavor to begin with.
If somebody really cares, they'll find an ounce of courage to overcome fear.
Fear of losing meaning in their lives, or fear of discovering there is no heaven, is much stronger still- yet if they really care about morality, they'll have the motivation to face those fears (rather than come up apathetic, using them as excuses).