what is objectivity? can we be objective in analysing situations, conflicts?

Objectivity and subjectivity

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places or for certain people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be true for someone who likes it,
but not for everyone.

The above examples are non-controversial. There are, however, other issues considered objective by some, not all. The role of Evolution vs. Creation in the formation of living organisms is a typical example. Here, there are more objective arguments to support evolution than creation. Hence, an objective person will conclude that evolution is the most objective explanation. This illustrates that the objectivity of a theory does not depend on the approval of all. Sometimes, the objective opinion is held by a minority as, for example, Copernicus and Galileo's theories on the rotation of the Earth.

Objectivity versus neutrality

Neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. In a controversy, an objective person will not remain neutral but will chose the side supported by the most objective arguments. Objectivity therefore requires a choice, which is often difficult and may prove to be erroneous, whereas neutrality requires no choice.

Views: 26

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The problem with objectivity is you can do nothing with it.
Collecting info is one thing - but after you have all the info?
Then you start making judgments in order to choose sides - there is no objectiveness, only your thoughts and emotions.

For example, one can be triggered by seeing the spurring of hate, another by seeing violance and some other guy can just see a neverending circle and loose hope.

So, the only way to remain objective is to not choose sides and thus not relate to the emotions of the sides (very similar to what Robert was saying), so then what is the objective of collecting the info?

To me the peacful way is to not choose sides, but try and understand both sides (being compassionate like Robert suggested) - this is as close as you can get to being "objective".

Also, there is, to me, a flaw in saying "an objective person will chose the side supported by the most objective arguments". An objective person will not choose a side if realizing there are objective arguments on both sides. The examples you suggest from science are not "mostly" true but always true and thus proovable.

RSS

Latest Activity

© 2020   Created by David Califa. Managed by Eyal Raviv.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service