Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 9:38 am**

Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 9:12 am Yes, in my experience a lot of people here have a particular single issue that they mostly want to discuss. In your case it seems to me the thesis that western mainstream media deliberately don't print stories about bad stuff done by the Chinese Communist Party. But I like to see a bit of good healthy self-mockery!

I am trying to come to terms with this happenning. My wife being from Hong Kong, I see stuff that never makes the news in The Netherlands. For example the police torturing a democracy activist in the hospital, on libe camera! So, I alert the media (multiple). No one ran the story. I do read CCP propaganda concerning Hong Kong, which is what gave it away to me.

But yes, I am aware of doing that. It is for me and for you. I hope you know what I mean.

[/quote]
That's one example of the process of taking a set of individual observations and finding the patterns in them - the things that they all share - to come up with a proposed objective reality. Rousseau, I guess, picks that as a nice clear example, but any set of individual observations would do. You could, for example, use the example of a circular coin seen at an angle. (I think Russell uses that example.)

So you think modern scientists don't do things like that anymore? If so, that would be a strange view to take. Doing things like that is the very definition of what science does.
[/quote]
I think that many do this and that not doing this is rewarded. They also call tjis machine learning. Likelyhood. Pay attention. You will see it more and more.

The problem is that every coherent thought has a major and a minor premisse (and relates to another thought in some way). However, many observations used as a set doesn't form a major premisse. Likelihood is not an exact determining factor.

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 9:47 am**

Arjen wrote:I think that many do this and that not doing this is rewarded. They also call tjis machine learning. Likelyhood. Pay attention. You will see it more and more.

The problem is that every coherent thought has a major and a minor premisse (and relates to another thought in some way). However, many observations used as a set doesn't form a major premisse. Likelihood is not an exact determining factor.

Finding patterns in individual observations in order to describe and predict a proposed objective reality is something that we all do every second of every day. Science also does it, but in a more formal and usually more quantitative way. So I don't really know what you're talking about when you say "not doing this is rewarded". And it's not obvious how you're going to suddenly bring in the subject of machine learning.

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 9:48 am**

Although I think I might be able to spot how you're going to bring in the subject of the MSM's collusion with the CCP!

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 10:44 am**

Arjen wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:42 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:21 am Oddly, in replying to me you don't say what you mean when you use the misleading term "objective" in this discussion. But that was the point you were replying to...?
That's because likelyhood comes from subjectivty. It has nothing to do with objectivity, not even the subjectively objective kind. It is just a collection of subjectives.

So "likelyhood" is nothing to do with statistics, but is merely intended as a subjective gesture in the vague direction of statistics and science?

Arjen wrote: ↑October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.

Arjen wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:42 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:21 am So how are you using this contentious term?
Because that is the point I was making.

Does this clarify?

No, it doesn't clarify at all. I asked what meaning you intended to convey by using the term "objective", and you answered a question that I didn't ask, in the style of a politician. Look:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 11:23 am "Objective" can carry a number of different but related meanings:

[1]Correspondence with that which actually is.
[2]Correspondence with the apparent reality that our senses show to us.
[3]Possible 'in-between' values.
[4]Unbiased, impartial, external....

[1] complicates matters because it strays outside the bailiwick of science, and into metaphysics (are we brains-in-vats, etc). Unless this is your specific aim, you should avoid it.

[2] is probably the one you want? It describes quite well the aims and area-of-relevance of science.

[4] is the mildest definition, conveying an unemotional and impersonal flavour. If this is what you mean, you'd do best to make that clear.

So please clarify your position, and confirm the meaning you intend. That way, your readers know what you mean, and can respond accordingly. Thanks.

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 11:22 am**

I think that the miscommunication is that statistics are just numbers confirming subjectivity. Somehow you think that is objective. Which is the problem with machine learning.

Are you familiar in logic?

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 11:48 am**

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 10:44 am
Arjen wrote: ↑October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 11:23 am "Objective" can carry a number of different but related meanings:

[1]Correspondence with that which actually is.
[2]Correspondence with the apparent reality that our senses show to us.
[3]Possible 'in-between' values.
[4]Unbiased, impartial, external....

[1] complicates matters because it strays outside the bailiwick of science, and into metaphysics (are we brains-in-vats, etc). Unless this is your specific aim, you should avoid it.

[2] is probably the one you want? It describes quite well the aims and area-of-relevance of science.

[4] is the mildest definition, conveying an unemotional and impersonal flavour. If this is what you mean, you'd do best to make that clear.
So please clarify your position, and confirm the meaning you intend. That way, your readers know what you mean, and can respond accordingly. Thanks.

Arjen wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 11:22 am I think that the miscommunication is that statistics are just numbers confirming subjectivity. Somehow you think that is objective. Which is the problem with machine learning.

Are you familiar in logic?

You used the term "objectivity", so please confirm what you meant by it. Or don't you know? Did you use it simply as a throwaway term to enhance the authority of your words? I have asked a simple question 3 times now - please say what you meant!

[ As for familiarity with logic. Yes - I have Maths and Physics A-levels, a degree in Electronics and a working lifetime spent designing digital hardware and software. Oh, and a lifetime enthusiasm for philosophy. I have encountered logic once or twice. ]

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 1:08 pm**

Arjen wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 3:30 am Pattern-chaser

I would like to explain something. There is a difference between the common subjective - objective distinction and the actual distinction:
1) The common objective - subjective distinction.
It is difficult to be objective. We take objectivity as not influenced by a personal bias. For example, calling water warm is subjective, because it has to do with my opinion on what warm and cold are. Calling that same water 25 degrees Celsius is then objective, because we can all agree to it. There are those suggesting that any description is inherently subject, because every individual has a perspective. It might be close to objective, but it is never perfect.
2) The actual objective - subjective distinction.
The terms refer to belonging to the subject (=observer) and belonging to the object (=observed). For example, we might assert that the leaves of a certain tree are green and everyone (except the colour blind) will agree. That makes it objectively true according to the common meaning of the word. BUT, the reality is that in those leaves are chloroplasts. So, an objective description might be that I observe chloroplasts and that we perceive them as green.
This makes that the assertion that any subject can, in no way, ever be completely objective. We are not the object. We can only perceive the object as subjects. Therefore, any and all things we think to know about those objects are subjective.

However, the value of science is the actual attempt to try to achieve knowledge about the object(s) under investigation. Science is attempting to find the actual facts occurring around us, although we can never know what they are exactly, in themselves. It still attempts to be as close as it gets to that. It can only be objective knowledge of a subject concerning a thing. And that is what is meant by objective knowledge in common speech.

I hope that helps you. Although it might complicate matters further. Apologies for that

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 1:19 pm**

pattern-chaser wrote:
[ As for familiarity with logic. Yes - I have Maths and Physics A-levels, a degree in Electronics and a working lifetime spent designing digital hardware and software. Oh, and a lifetime enthusiasm for philosophy. I have encountered logic once or twice. ]

That is not what I meant. Logic is also a s ript to encasulte the workings in the mind. I will divert and explain through set theory.

In a normal thought, we judge things and place observations in a relevant category, or set. For example Socrates would fall in the set of Humans, a boot would fall in the set of footwear and a cat falls both in the sets of pets and mammals (and more). Likelyhood based on multiple observations, does not have this quality. While observing an x number of humans, we can not conclude to a set. We can have an idea of these observations and we can go a long way to comparing new observations, but is not the same. All observations are elements of the set. They do not provide definitions of the set. This is the difference. Likelyhood does not provide the same certainty as a normal coherent human thought. Does this make sense, somehow?

Posted: **October 12th, 2020, 5:30 pm**

Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 9:48 am Although I think I might be able to spot how you're going to bring in the subject of the MSM's collusion with the CCP!

Posted: **October 13th, 2020, 8:09 am**

Arjen wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 1:08 pm @Pattern-chaser

I would like to explain something. There is a difference between the common subjective - objective distinction and the actual distinction:
1) The common objective - subjective distinction.
It is difficult to be objective. We take objectivity as not influenced by a personal bias. For example, calling water warm is subjective, because it has to do with my opinion on what warm and cold are. Calling that same water 25 degrees Celsius is then objective, because we can all agree to it. There are those suggesting that any description is inherently subject, because every individual has a perspective. It might be close to objective, but it is never perfect.
2) The actual objective - subjective distinction.
The terms refer to belonging to the subject (=observer) and belonging to the object (=observed). For example, we might assert that the leaves of a certain tree are green and everyone (except the colour blind) will agree. That makes it objectively true according to the common meaning of the word. BUT, the reality is that in those leaves are chloroplasts. So, an objective description might be that I observe chloroplasts and that we perceive them as green.
This makes that the assertion that any subject can, in no way, ever be completely objective. We are not the object. We can only perceive the object as subjects. Therefore, any and all things we think to know about those objects are subjective.

However, the value of science is the actual attempt to try to achieve knowledge about the object(s) under investigation. Science is attempting to find the actual facts occurring around us, although we can never know what they are exactly, in themselves. It still attempts to be as close as it gets to that. It can only be objective knowledge of a subject concerning a thing. And that is what is meant by objective knowledge in common speech.

My apologies. I didn't realise that "not influenced by personal bias" was intended as a definition of "objectivity". You seemed only to be digging into the literal meanings of object and subject, perhaps seeking some form of clarity. I missed the definition in the middle.

So the definition you're using is about as mild as it can get.

So let's return to what you said many posts ago.

Greta wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 6:07 am Still, if anyone tries to be objective, it's scientists and, to a lesser extent, philosophers and judges.

Arjen wrote: ↑October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am You have that wrong. It should be:
Still, if anyone tries to be objective, it's philosophers and, to a lesser extent, scientists and judges.
But the latter are effectively laughable if taken too seriously.
They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
They have to stick to the previously defined parameters, or limits of their fields.

So when you said "they don't really have a clue about objectivity", you referred simply and only to their inability (in your eyes) to understand (and perhaps avoid) personal bias. I think there is a little more depth to this discussion than that.

Still, at least now I can see what it is that you're saying.

Posted: **October 13th, 2020, 9:31 am**

It is not a question for answering yes and no: Concerning the exact natural sciences and most parts of mathematics, science really is objective - pure gold is gold and can be proofed to be nothing else. Concerning the humanities, you should expect that their results are more than individual ideas although they are based on subjective research. It seems to me to be common sense of the humanities to expect research results which are intersubjectively verifiable (using the same method in the same field for working on the same question, different researchers should come to fully comparable results).

Posted: **October 13th, 2020, 1:48 pm**

Fellowmater wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 9:31 am Concerning the exact natural sciences and most parts of mathematics, science really is objective - pure gold is gold and can be proofed to be nothing else.

This seems like you're conflating science and what science makes claims about. Science makes claims about objective things, it deal with objective facts and so on, but those things, those facts are not the same thing as science. Science is a set of human activities, human ideologies, etc.

Posted: **October 13th, 2020, 2:13 pm**

Pattern-chaser I didn't say that. That was the reason why I was mentioning scientists are not serious enough.

Posted: **October 14th, 2020, 9:09 am**

Arjen wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 2:13 pm @Pattern-chaser I didn't say that.

Then what did you say? I've asked and asked, and you have not responded. I'm trying to understand your points and your position, but I can't. Why not begin by saying what meaning you intend to convey when you use the word "objective"? We can proceed from there....

Posted: **October 14th, 2020, 10:35 am**

That (most) scientists are not serious enough. It shows in the complete absence of understanding what objectivity even means. And it is formalised in the adoption of likelihood into scientific research.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?

Re: Is Science Objective?