Are objectivity and truth the same?

Matias

Objectivity is a distinctively human trait, as only human beings have the capacity for objectivity. It involves the ability to shift perspective, and no one has ever attributed this to animals. Objectivity requires us to stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny and judgement. Above all, it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our needs and desires

Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. One can arrive at true theories in a non-objective way. Indeed, one can hit upon the truth purely at random. Conversely, objective theories are not necessarily true. The history of science provides plenty of examples of the objective formulation and defence of theories that have turned out to be false and have been replaced by other theories. Objectivity is no guarantee of truth, any more than truth can only be the outcome of objectivity.

The problem with thinking of objectivity exclusively in general terms, as elimination of prejudice or bias, is that it encourages an absolutist view of objectivity. The prime example of such an absolutist conception is the view from nowhere.

There are two problems with this conception. First, the idea that we are being guided towards *the* truth is wholly misleading. What we are being guided towards are the best answers to the questions that we pose. If you deploy objective procedures in answering a misconceived, confused or misleading question, it is highly likely that the answer will get you nowhere.

Second, any attempt to assimilate objectivity and truth faces the difficulty that they behave in different ways. Note in particular that objectivity comes in degrees. One theory can be more objective than another, but a theory cannot be truer than another.
Whereas truth is absolute and does not come in degrees, objectivity *only* comes in degrees. The idea of absolute objectivity is a misconception. encouraged by thinking of it as a view from nowhere.

What we are seeking to do in imposing standards of objectivity in our judgments in modern science is to identify and separate the informative and the uninformative, with a view to producing reliable results.

Deleted User

Objectivity is a distinctively human trait, as only human beings have the capacity for objectivity. It involves the ability to shift perspective, and no one has ever attributed this to animals — Matias

Some of them can be aware of what other minds might be thinking. But setiing that aside, animals seem to me to manage to be objective about a lot of things. They certain manage to deal with the objective world in highly effective ways. They can make mistakes, a shadow is a predator, etc. But they are hardly purely subjective.

Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. — Matias

They are really in the same kind of category of concepts. Objectivity would be a state or an outlook or perhaps even an unfolding of the use of certain tools over time. Truth seems to me as more to do with propositions.

One can arrive at true theories in a non-objective way. Indeed, one can hit upon the truth purely at random. Conversely, objective theories are not necessarily true. — Matias

Yes.

Second, any attempt to assimilate objectivity and truth faces the difficulty that they behave in different ways. Note in particular that objectivity comes in degrees. One theory can be more objective than another, but a theory cannot be truer than another. — Matias

I don't think this is correct. Newtonians models were less true, ultimately, than Einstein's but they are still also quite true and are used for many things, given scale issues. They now know that ganglia are involved in intelligence and cognition also, not just neurons, but theories that put that all in terms of neurons are not completely false, they just were incomplete compared to current ones.

If you were correct then one could never improve a theory.

Terrapin Station

That's not at all the way that I use the term "objective/objectivity." One reason that I don't use it that way is that this idea is absurd: "stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny and judgement. Above all, it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our needs and desires."

It's impossible to "stand back" from perceptions, beliefs and opinions. It's impossible to judge anything in a way that conflicts with all of your needs and desires.

And the notion that we can and should stand back from perceptions, beliefs and opinions, that we can and should judge things in ways that conflict with all of our needs and desires are themselves beliefs/opinions/desires that rely on perceptions and other beliefs.

tim wood

Objectivity is a distinctively human trait, as only human beings have the capacity for objectivity. It involves the ability to shift perspective, and no one has ever attributed this to animals. Objectivity requires us to stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny and judgement. Above all, it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our needs and desires — Matias

(I wouldn't be too quickly dismissive of the judgment of animals - but a whole other topic!) A great start to an interesting OP!

Whereas truth is absolute and does not come in degrees, objectivity *only* comes in degrees. The idea of absolute objectivity is a misconception. encouraged by thinking of it as a view from nowhere.

What we are seeking to do in imposing standards of objectivity in our judgments in modern science is to identify and separate the informative and the uninformative, with a view to producing reliable results. — Matias

I think there is an Achilles' heel here: "truth is absolute and does not come in degrees." I'll try a metaphor: truth is that which floats in a sea of facts-as-observations. Change the facts - drain the sea - and no truth floats there any more.

Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. — Matias

Indeed, but they seem to be related. When we say something is true, the full expression is "true of." You refer in your OP to,

The history of science provides plenty of examples of the objective formulation and defence of theories that have turned out to be false and have been replaced by other theories. — Matias

I think it worth qualifying here for present purpose, that "false" is better expressed as "no longer true." Or as true, as with Newtonian physics. That is, truth is a measure, objectivity the attempt to qualify and refine/adjust/correct the measure.

Matias

It's impossible to "stand back" from perceptions, beliefs and opinions. — Terrapin Station

I can assure you that it is possible. It is commonly called "critical thinking".
Some people practice it ( I am among them) and some are even good at it.

Terrapin Station

I can assure you that it is possible. It is commonly called "critical thinking".
Some people practice it ( I am among them) and some are even good at it. — Matias

So under critical thinking, there are no perceptions or beliefs?

Matias

↪Terrapin Station

I never claimed that there "are no perceptions or beliefs", but you can question your beliefs (and if you are unable or unwilling to do it, other people can do it for you - that is the essence of science: trying together (!) to be as objective as possible).
If you told me that you are never doing this, I would not believe this for a second.

Terrapin Station

I never claimed that there "are no perceptions or beliefs", but you can question your beliefs (and if you are unable or unwilling to do it, other people can do it for you - that is the essence of science).
If you told me that you are never doing this, I would not believe this for a second. — Matias

You question your beliefs, from the framework of other beliefs, perceptions, etc. You're not "standing back" from perceptions and beliefs. And there's nothing objective about it.

Matias

↪Terrapin Station

OK, so you are taking offense at the metaphor "to stand back from X"?
How do you call it when you hold a belief and then it occurs to you "I could be biased or prejudiced or simply mistaken"?
"I think it is water over there, but it could be a mirage"; "I think that Abidjan is the capital of Ghana - or is it Accra?"

Or do you never doubt or question any of your beliefs, judgements, perceptions?

Terrapin Station

OK, so you are taking offense at the metaphor "to stand back from X"? — Matias

No. Merely explaining that it's not possible to "stand back" from your beliefs and perceptions.

How do you call it when you hold a belief and then it occurs to you "I could be biased or prejudiced or simply mistaken"? — Matias

I don't have a special term for it. The point is simply that "I could be biased or prejudiced or simply mistaken" is itself a belief, a type of bias, as is the notion that one should perform this sort of examination, etc.

Or do you never doubt or question any of your beliefs, judgements, perceptions? — Matias

Of course I do. I just don't pretend that I can be non-biased, objective, etc.

Matias

↪Terrapin Station

My impression is that you are contradicting my posts and comments just for the fun to be able to contradict somebody.
What is your point? That "to doubt" is also a "belief". No, it is not. You can hold a belief ("Accra is the capital of Ghana") and then you can doubt it (without replacing it by another belief), simply because you are not sure about this very belief and you are aware of this doubt. The doubt itself is not a belief. And if you in your private universe call a doubt a belief, so be it, I am not going to discuss this because it is not relevant.

What is relevant is that human beings - and as far as we know this capacity is unique to Homo sapiens; animals cannot do this trick - are able to reflect on their perceptions and beliiefs, because human cognition is a multi-tier affair: I have a perception or a thought and then - on a "higher" level so to speak - I can relate to this thought/belief/perception. If you are not able to do this, if you are condemned to take all your perceptions and beliefs at face value, I'd say that this a severe deficiency. I guess that people like Trump are also unable to question their beliefs: every idea or belief that pops up in the mind of Donald "The stable genius" Trump is relevant and true and even brilliant. No doubts nowhere

You do not pretend that you can be non-biased, objective, etc...? Neither do I. That is why I distinguish objectivity and truth in my OP. Objectivity is not a state of affairs ("I know the truth") but it is an intellectual QUEST fuelled by my knowledge that I am biased and fallibe. If you say "I am subjective and everything is subjective and that 's it" - there will be no quest, no progress of knowledge, no science. The moment you decide to try to find out about X, you are trying to be objective, because your intention is directed towards an object.
If you just remain in your own subjectivity then you'll never find out anything.
Some people enjoy wallowing in their ignorance.

Terrapin Station

What is your point? — Matias

I type my points. The point of every sentence I type is just what that sentence says. I don't see the utility of typing something that's not my point--why beat around the bush?

At any rate, "I'm not sure if Accra is the capital of Ghana," "I don't think that Accra is the capital of Ghana," etc. are beliefs.

Again, yes, we're able to reflect on beliefs. That's not something objective that we're doing, and it's not something non-biased, non-belief-based, etc. that we're doing.

The moment you decide to try to find out about X, you are trying to be objective, because your intention is directed towards an object. — Matias

No I'm not, because I realize that people can't be objective. That doesn't amount to not wanting to reflect on, not wanting to test, etc. beliefs. I just realize that there's nothing objective about it.

Mww

↪Matias

No, objectivity and truth are not the same.

Objectivity is a judgement of negation, in which content is given (no opinion about objects has intrinsic validity); truth is a judgement of affirmation, in which content is irrelevant (if this then that necessarily).

The former is an empirical judgement grounded by intuition (if from sense there is some object), the latter is an a priori judgement grounded in understanding (wherein a cognition must conform to its object).

Objectivity is a judgement of quality by practical reason; truth is a judgement on relation by pure reason.

Objectivity is a rational inclination, truth is a rational construction.

Not even close.......... it would seem.

Matias

The point of every sentence I type is just what that sentence says. — Terrapin Station

The problem is that your sentences do not say anything that could in any sense be considered valid in the contect of my OP.

You say that there is no objectivity, and the only "reason" you seem to give - after all that is the point you keep mentioning - is that all we have are beliefs. Even a "?" attached to a belief is a belief. And because beliefs are inherently subjective, objectivity is a mirage.
Does that in any way invalidate my arguments in the OP? No. You are just deliberately misinterpreting them.
If it's all beliefs from top to bottom: what is the difference between these two beliefs?
(a) Grinded rhino horn is a remedy for erectile dysfunction
(b) AIDS is caused by the HI virus

Matias

↪Mww

Are these your ideas or is there some source?

Objectivity is a rational inclination, truth is a rational construction. — Mww

I simply haven't the foggiest what this could mean :-)

Harry Hindu

Objectivity is a distinctively human trait, as only human beings have the capacity for objectivity. It involves the ability to shift perspective, and no one has ever attributed this to animals. Objectivity requires us to stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny and judgement. Above all, it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our needs and desires — Matias

Think of subjective statements as value statements and objective statements as non-value statements. Subjective statements contain terms like, "good", "bad", "best", "worst", "right", "wrong", etc., while objective statements lack these terms. Subjective statements are basically a shortcut, or misuse, of language that projects one's preferences on objects - as if the noun in the statement possessed the quality that the subjective terms refer to rather than referring to the user's own preferences.

Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. One can arrive at true theories in a non-objective way. — Matias

Can you give an example?

Conversely, objective theories are not necessarily true. The history of science provides plenty of examples of the objective formulation and defence of theories that have turned out to be false and have been replaced by other theories. Objectivity is no guarantee of truth, any more than truth can only be the outcome of objectivity. — Matias

This is the problem of knowledge, not anything to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity.

The problem with thinking of objectivity exclusively in general terms, as elimination of prejudice or bias, is that it encourages an absolutist view of objectivity. The prime example of such an absolutist conception is the view from nowhere.

There are two problems with this conception. First, the idea that we are being guided towards *the* truth is wholly misleading. — Matias

What are we to make of this statement and all of your other statements, then? Are you making a truth claim here - that the idea that we are being guided towards the truth is wholly misleading? Are you misleading us with your statements, or are you trying to refer to some real state-of-affairs that is true from an alternate perspective - like one outside of everyone's minds (a view from nowhere) and looking at all minds objectively as if they all had the same property of being misled towards the truth?

Wouldn't it make more sense and be more accurate to say "We can only arrive at the truth after making all possible mistakes."?

What we are being guided towards are the best answers to the questions that we pose. — Matias

What is the difference between the "best answers" and the "truth"?

Terrapin Station

The problem is that your sentences do not say anything that could in any sense be considered valid in the contect of my OP. — Matias

I don't see it as a requirement that you have a particular opinion about how my comments relate to your initial post.

You say that there is no objectivity, — Matias

I didn't say that. I said that we can't be objective.

Does that in any way invalidate my arguments in the OP? No. You are just deliberately misinterpreting them. — Matias

As I've explained a couple times now, we can't actually "stand back" from our perceptions, beliefs, etc. You can't do that any more than you can escape your own shadow.

If it's all beliefs from top to bottom: what is the difference between these two beliefs?
(a) Grinded rhino horn is a remedy for erectile dysfunction
(b) AIDS is caused by the HI virus — Matias

There are a lot of differences. But one of them isn't that one is "objective" while the other isn't.

Matias

What is the difference between the "best answers" and the "truth"? — Harry Hindu

That answers come in grades. There are good, better and best answers, and we can strive to refine, to improve our answers, whereas truth is all-or-nothing. That is the reason why people who like a clear-cut world-view like to talk about "truth".
Scientists prefer to talk about "growing evidence" or "sufficient evidence". Objectivity is not a state we can reach, but it has more to do with a regulative idea, which is unattainable but serves as a guiding principle for all those who honestly (!) what to find out about X (whereby X is the "object".)
That is the point that @Terrapin Station refuses to understand: Objectivity is nothing that we "are", it is an attitude, something we strive to be.

luckswallowsall

Truth is that which corresponds to reality.

Objectivity splits into two kinds:

Epistemic objectivity refers to knowledge. Knowledge is different to truth.

Ontological objectivity refers to existence. Existence is different to truth.

So it's not the same.

Are objectivity and truth the same?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions