ElwoodBlues · M
Since physics is built on making measurements and predicting future measurements, and chemistry is built out of physics, and biology is built out of chemistry and physics, that still leaves a LOT of scope for objectivity.
BTW, for the last 100 years, physics has also incorporated the notion of fundamental randomness -- the fact that there are many individual small effects without causes -- and thus accurate predictability only emerges for large ensembles of these fundamentally random elements.
BTW, for the last 100 years, physics has also incorporated the notion of fundamental randomness -- the fact that there are many individual small effects without causes -- and thus accurate predictability only emerges for large ensembles of these fundamentally random elements.
CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M
Measurement is objective, and science is measurements and observations based on them.
Science being a vast feild does mean there is a lot of objectivity.
But that doesnt change what objectivity does; what it is good for.
The second you move from "this is what it is" to "what should we do about it?" You enter the realm of subjectivity.
Which is where the vast majority of human life exists.
I assert that pragmatic perspectivism is the best way to reconcile objective facts and subjective interpretations while leaving room for healthy dissent and preventing unnecessary conflict.
Science being a vast feild does mean there is a lot of objectivity.
But that doesnt change what objectivity does; what it is good for.
The second you move from "this is what it is" to "what should we do about it?" You enter the realm of subjectivity.
Which is where the vast majority of human life exists.
I assert that pragmatic perspectivism is the best way to reconcile objective facts and subjective interpretations while leaving room for healthy dissent and preventing unnecessary conflict.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
There is a lot of confusion on the meaning of objectivity.
All knowledge is subjective.
NOT mainly because of it´s limitations.
But because subjectivity is a primary property of the knowing subject.
Objectivity, as a primary property, belongs to things in themselves.
NOT to our knowledge of them but as they are, known or not.
When we say that some knowledge is (to a certain point) objective we are using the word as an adjective, thus as a secondary property.
With not main source on the knowledge but in a relative better description of what the described IS by itself.
That´s why scientific laws are formulated for collectives and not for particulars.
That is ceteris paribus (at equal conditions).
Something particulars do not grant.
But a collection of the same natural kind accomplish approximately enough for Science purposes.
And they do it in a causal way, so objectively.
So yes
"To avoid delusion, remain aware that there are many other valid perspectives and yours is a personal choice"
But..................
That belongs to the domain of knowledge.
And objectivity do not.
All knowledge is subjective.
NOT mainly because of it´s limitations.
But because subjectivity is a primary property of the knowing subject.
Objectivity, as a primary property, belongs to things in themselves.
NOT to our knowledge of them but as they are, known or not.
When we say that some knowledge is (to a certain point) objective we are using the word as an adjective, thus as a secondary property.
With not main source on the knowledge but in a relative better description of what the described IS by itself.
That´s why scientific laws are formulated for collectives and not for particulars.
That is ceteris paribus (at equal conditions).
Something particulars do not grant.
But a collection of the same natural kind accomplish approximately enough for Science purposes.
And they do it in a causal way, so objectively.
So yes
"To avoid delusion, remain aware that there are many other valid perspectives and yours is a personal choice"
But..................
That belongs to the domain of knowledge.
And objectivity do not.
View 4 more replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@CynicalSpaceMan
I’m saying that once constraints exist, the selection among possible actions is irreducibly subjective, whether reflective or not.
Somewhat true, yet ignores the fact of endless possibilities.
Which is the bigger infinity? Both your constraints and possible actions are infinite!
So which is subjective? And which is the objective reality?
I have a math background FYI. We describe reality in infinities. And Chaos theory is very real.
I’m saying that once constraints exist, the selection among possible actions is irreducibly subjective, whether reflective or not.
Somewhat true, yet ignores the fact of endless possibilities.
Which is the bigger infinity? Both your constraints and possible actions are infinite!
So which is subjective? And which is the objective reality?
I have a math background FYI. We describe reality in infinities. And Chaos theory is very real.
CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M
@DeWayfarer infinity possibilities doesn't change the fact that constraints exist, human action based on said constraints are subjective, and the only objective way to weight one against another is by judging whether or not said decision serves the goal of the person who made it...
The constraints are reality, and the decisions are subjective.
The constraints are reality, and the decisions are subjective.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@CynicalSpaceMan I suggest you look into alternate realities existing concurrently to your objective reality.
The math is extremely compelling. 🙃
The math is extremely compelling. 🙃
CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M
@Alyosha that's a valuable and interesting perspective.