yes. objectivity is quoting someone elses opinion because it has survival value. It’s really about ease of communication because it’s so tiring to figure out what someone is talking about when they use subjective descriptions when we can fall back on popular memes and buzzwords to establish a bond (and avoid getting ostracized)
From
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
If ultimately it is trust in science we want, we might then define as “objective” any feature of science that promotes trust (cf. Fine 1998: 18). That is, anything goes—as long as the practice promotes trust in science. In contraposition to the three traditional alternatives, we may call this conception instrumentalism about scientific objectivity .
Now,
- Fine, A., 1998, “The Viewpoint of No-One in Particular”, Proceedings and Adresses of the APA , 72: 9–20.
is paywalled, so I can’t read it.
but, the conclusion drawn by the articles author, Dwayne H. Mulder, suggests that this disclosure,
might serve to promote trust in the story.
If it does, then what’s the issue?
3 Likes
The technical term for that type of disclosure is Ethical Disclosure and is what is recommended by every ethics in journalism policy i can find, for whatever it is worth, AP, CAJ, CAP, NYT, ASHA, all include this in their ethics policies, couldn’t find one without it.
Knowing that the author has incarcerated people themselves and has family that is incarcerated puts those facts out in the open to eliminate them being mistaken for a hidden agenda. by having them out in the open we can evaluate for ourselves if those played into the story as basis or not. it is the responsible thing to do.
6 Likes
Gödels Incompleteness Theorem places limits on the objective nature of mathematics.
as for physics:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832
I do wonder what Kuhn would have made of the fact that nowadays, CERN papers are written by hundreds, or thousands of collaborators.
1 Like
I remember that bothering me in high school. There was such a huge emphasis on when a Treaty was signed, and who signed it, with the actual details of said treaty being glossed over and largely ignored. At one point I could tell you when the Magna Carta was signed and by whom, but at no point could I ever tell you what it actually contained or why it was important. Such details were apparently irrelevant.
2 Likes
At one point I could tell you when the Magna Carta was signed.
Apparently, that was once an open historical question.
but the controversy was a matter of days, not years.
Not remotely my field, though.
IMHO, a good history course should cover both the open questions, and how a historian might
answer them.
I remember a particularly interesting Developmental Biology class in college-- it was really the first course I encountered that explicitly referenced the experimental methods used to discover each “fact.”
If people were truly committed to this “objective” and “ethical” standard of disclosure, people would disclose if they’ve never had any family members imprisoned, since that also represents a fact that could influence the story. That would be equally responsible, under “Ethical Disclosure”.
That’s the original point, that people claiming objectivity are often doing it with a subjective double standard and framework.
It’s the point that the original article made.
2 Likes
Ugh… you’d think I was better at quantum stuff given what I supposedly do for a living. Looks like a neat paper.
As for Gödel, I couldn’t agree more, but at least it’s part of the framework that the framework always has holes. 
Also, I heard that being a mathematician is a “get out of jury duty free” card. We don’t understand “probable cause”, apparently, never mind “objectivity” as understood in a social sense. 
… probably true…
1 Like
Magna Carta (and the various copies/versions that were made and distributed) was not signed. The royal seal was attached.
I dunno I’m me I’ve been told my entire life I’m unique and special by parents/teachers etc. I’ve been told I’m a weirdo and freak by peers. Never been called a unicorn though. I’ve spent in an ordinate amount of time thinking about what consciousness, individuality and pondering stupid shit like if different people even experience colors in the anything remotely the same fashion. I dunno I came to the conclusion that objectively experiencing reality is literally impossible that’s just a foundational belief of mine.
1 Like
i think it’s impossible too.
In line with what the BB post says, might I suggest pondering how being white and male (if that’s what you are) have affected your outlook? In ways that make your outlook categorically different from the outlooks of people who aren’t white males? That could really blow your mind! 
4 Likes
…anything at all. As the linked article proposes everybody has bias(es).
Fer sure, my dude. But some group-bound ones are more problematic than others.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
