5
   

CAN I BE OBJECTIVE

 
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 02:53 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:
the very recognition of these factors gives us some power over them.
In a sense, we are subject to these factors as one may be subject to a king.
When we recognize this, we then become able to, in a sense, rebel against them. Thus improving the degree to which we are objective, rather than subject.
Just because you recognize a factor does not give you power of anything, that would revolutionize the mental healthcare industry, so you are suggesting that a shrink only needs to make the patient recognize his/her own illness in order to partially cure them? ..by far not! But if it was truly the case, it would revolutionize the industry of curing people.

Too many try to rebel against their own illness but are too weak, the mental will en masse are poor.

kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 03:07 am
The OP question seems to be asking two different questions. 1. Can a person (himself) be unbiased? 2. Can what a person writes or says be unbiased?

The answer to 1. seems to be, yes, but there are degrees of bias, so it may be that (depending on the issue) no person can be completely unbiased. The answer to 2. seems to be an unqualified yes. It is possible, and it is done, for someone to separate his own attitudes from what he writes or says.

As usual, once we clarify the issue, the answer is (in this case, fairly) obvious.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 03:39 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

wayne wrote:
the very recognition of these factors gives us some power over them.
In a sense, we are subject to these factors as one may be subject to a king.
When we recognize this, we then become able to, in a sense, rebel against them. Thus improving the degree to which we are objective, rather than subject.
Just because you recognize a factor does not give you power of anything, that would revolutionize the mental healthcare industry, so you are suggesting that a shrink only needs to make the patient recognize his/her own illness in order to partially cure them? ..by far not! But if it was truly the case, it would revolutionize the industry of curing people.

Too many try to rebel against their own illness but are too weak, the mental will en masse are poor.




I didn't mean to infer that having the power necessarily constitutes the use of that power. Knowledge of the cure is power, the exercise of that power is another thing.
In fact, psychotherapy focuses on revealing the causes of the problem.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 03:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

The OP question seems to be asking two different questions. 1. Can a person (himself) be unbiased? 2. Can what a person writes or says be unbiased?

The answer to 1. seems to be, yes, but there are degrees of bias, so it may be that (depending on the issue) no person can be completely unbiased. The answer to 2. seems to be an unqualified yes. It is possible, and it is done, for someone to separate his own attitudes from what he writes or says.

As usual, once we clarify the issue, the answer is (in this case, fairly) obvious.


You sir, are correct.
That's not all though.
Are 1 and 2 inherent or dependent?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 04:59 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:
I didn't mean to infer that having the power necessarily constitutes the use of that power. Knowledge of the cure is power, the exercise of that power is another thing.
In fact, psychotherapy focuses on revealing the causes of the problem.
Indeed, and with this I agree.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:42 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

The OP question seems to be asking two different questions. 1. Can a person (himself) be unbiased? 2. Can what a person writes or says be unbiased?

The answer to 1. seems to be, yes, but there are degrees of bias, so it may be that (depending on the issue) no person can be completely unbiased. The answer to 2. seems to be an unqualified yes. It is possible, and it is done, for someone to separate his own attitudes from what he writes or says.

As usual, once we clarify the issue, the answer is (in this case, fairly) obvious.


You sir, are correct.
That's not all though.
Are 1 and 2 inherent or dependent?


What does the question mean?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:46 am
@kennethamy,
Is the quality of bias an inherent quality?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:57 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

Is the quality of bias an inherent quality?


I think everyone has the capacity for bias, but as the song in South Pacific goes,

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 07:43 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

Is the quality of bias an inherent quality?


I think everyone has the capacity for bias, but as the song in South Pacific goes,

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
No, various phobia usually isn't taught most are dorment instincts, though indeed to some degree we can be taught hate and fear through suggestion.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 08:36 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:


Is the quality of bias an inherent quality?


I think everyone has the capacity for bias, but as the song in South Pacific goes,

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
[/quote]No, various phobia usually isn't taught most are dorment instincts, though indeed to some degree we can be taught hate and fear through suggestion.
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 08:41 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

Is the quality of bias an inherent quality?


I think everyone has the capacity for bias, but as the song in South Pacific goes,

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
No, various phobia usually isn't taught most are dorment instincts, though indeed to some degree we can be taught hate and fear through suggestion.


What I said was that all people have ( I think) the capacity to be biased. But that what form that bias takes, and whether it is actualized has to be taught. But it may be (as David Stove has argued) that there is some hostility already present in everyone against people very different from themselves, and that this has to be acknowledged, and not condemned with negative terms like, "racism" and, "prejudice".
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 05:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
What I said was that all people have ( I think) the capacity to be biased. But that what form that bias takes, and whether it is actualized has to be taught. But it may be (as David Stove has argued) that there is some hostility already present in everyone against people very different from themselves, and that this has to be acknowledged, and not condemned with negative terms like, "racism" and, "prejudice".


I must say, I agree with Mr David Stowe.
Shame based learning is so counterproductive.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 07:29 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What I said was that all people have ( I think) the capacity to be biased. But that what form that bias takes, and whether it is actualized has to be taught. But it may be (as David Stove has argued) that there is some hostility already present in everyone against people very different from themselves, and that this has to be acknowledged, and not condemned with negative terms like, "racism" and, "prejudice".


I must say, I agree with Mr David Stowe.
Shame based learning is so counterproductive.


"Stove", not "Stowe". It is a matter of controlling the hostility, since how it is managed, and its extent, but not its existence, is within our control.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 06:47 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What I said was that all people have ( I think) the capacity to be biased. But that what form that bias takes, and whether it is actualized has to be taught. But it may be (as David Stove has argued) that there is some hostility already present in everyone against people very different from themselves, and that this has to be acknowledged, and not condemned with negative terms like, "racism" and, "prejudice".


I must say, I agree with Mr David Stowe.
Shame based learning is so counterproductive.


"Stove", not "Stowe". It is a matter of controlling the hostility, since how it is managed, and its extent, but not its existence, is within our control.


Yes, as you say, when we remove the confusion the solution becomes evident.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:42 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:
Yes, as you say, when we remove the confusion the solution becomes evident.
Good and beautiful rethoric, but as I see reality it isn't so ..by far not so.

People will usually adhere certain compulsive algoritms, complacent persons, idiots, psycos, skitzos, they will all make poor choises, even if the solution is very simple and obvious.
0 Replies
 
deepthot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2010 03:38 pm
@wayne,
Wayne,
When a math or logic formula is written on the board before a class it is objective - in the sense that the same formula is agreed to by professionals in that field, all over the planet. Yes, there are alternate systems of math (and of logic) but scientists feel free to draw on any one of them when they need rigorous theory to explain their data.

This objectivity applies to symbols and formulas interpreted in the field of Ethics. See M. C. Katz - A Unified Theory of Ethics - a trilogy. It is based on concepts found in his ETHICS: A College Course. [You may Google it; also google:: " Marvin Charles Katz." ]

Anything connected with people - including doing math; and doing science - is subjective. I accept Kenanthony's definition of what objectivity is, namely, independent of what I might hope and believe, and invaraiantly true across cultures. Ultimately, "objectivity" is "inter-subjectivity." There is no getting around it. But so what?

The answer to your question is: Yes, you can be objective..

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 11:03 am
@deepthot,
Deepthroat, don 't you see a difference between objective and inter-subjective? The former refers to mind independent entities and events while the latter grounds all human experience in human experience. There may be more than that, but do we ever talk about it--at least any more than we talk about the nature of Kant's purely hypothetical Noumena?
deepthot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 01:16 am
@JLNobody,
JL

Obviously you missed my point: I am arguing that when it comes to humans, there are no "mind-independent" events -- since if there were we couldn't even conceive of them. If conception, perception, or experience takes place, then mind (some mental event) was a necessary component.

The burden is on you to tell me how some subjective interpretation is by-passed. You and I agree that Obama is President because we heard it from other human beings via some media, via print, internet, or TV. I don't think we are gullible in believing it because so many other humans will agree to believe it also, thus sharing our conception.

My research into the Ethics of Belief - which you will find on pages 34-37 of my treatise: ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - a link to which is HERE:
[url]http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x[/url] - directs us to be skeptical about what we hear or read. There is much too much gullibility on the part of the public, and a lack of understanding about the misuse of statistics, or of the protocols of scientific method.

Check out the entire trilogy for your reading enjoyment.

...And (it may be helpful to) be more precise about the names (or the nicknames) of the contributors here also. Wink
.
kennethamy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 07:56 am
@deepthot,
deepthot wrote:

JL

Obviously you missed my point: I am arguing that when it comes to humans, there are no "mind-independent" events -- since if there were we couldn't even conceive of them. If conception, perception, or experience takes place, then mind (some mental event) was a necessary component.


lll

The burden is on you to tell me how some subjective interpretation is by-passed. You and I agree that Obama is President because we heard it from other human beings via some media, via print, internet, or TV. I don't think we are gullible in believing it because so many other humans will agree to believe it also, thus sharing our conception.

My research into the Ethics of Belief - which you will find on pages 34-37 of my treatise: ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - a link to which is HERE:
[url]http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x[/url] - directs us to be skeptical about what we hear or read. There is much too much gullibility on the part of the public, and a lack of understanding about the misuse of statistics, or of the protocols of scientific method.

Check out the entire trilogy for your reading enjoyment.

...And (it may be helpful to) be more precise about the names (or the nicknames) of the contributors here also. Wink
.


lll
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 08:38 am
@deepthot,
deepthot wrote:

JL

Obviously you missed my point: I am arguing that when it comes to humans, there are no "mind-independent" events -- since if there were we couldn't even conceive of them. If conception, perception, or experience takes place, then mind (some mental event) was a necessary component.

The burden is on you to tell me how some subjective interpretation is by-passed. You and I agree that Obama is President because we heard it from other human beings via some media, via print, internet, or TV. I don't think we are gullible in believing it because so many other humans will agree to believe it also, thus sharing our conception.

My research into the Ethics of Belief - which you will find on pages 34-37 of my treatise: ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - a link to which is HERE:
[url]http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x[/url] - directs us to be skeptical about what we hear or read. There is much too much gullibility on the part of the public, and a lack of understanding about the misuse of statistics, or of the protocols of scientific method.

Check out the entire trilogy for your reading enjoyment.

...And (it may be helpful to) be more precise about the names (or the nicknames) of the contributors here also. Wink
.


To ask whether a person can be objective is quite different from asking whether a statement can be objective. To ask the latter is to ask whether the statement expresses some "fact of the matter". That is, whether there is some state of affairs in the world that makes that statement true or false. For example, the statement that the cat is on the the mat is objective because it is true or false depending on whether or not there is a cat on the mat. On the other hand, a statement like, vanilla ice-cream tastes better than chocolate ice-cream is subjective (not objective) because there is no fact of the matter as to whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate. (As the saying goes, there is no arguing about taste).

But to ask whether a person can be objective is to ask whether, and to what extent, the person can make a judgment independently of his personal biases and prejudices. For instance, can a person be objective about whether a particular baseball team is better than another team although he is a strong rooter for one of the teams, and a strong detractor of a different team. And, in fact, newspapers pay sports reporters to write objective assessments of the performance of baseball teams. And it a sports reporter gives a biased report of a game which favors a team he happens to support, he is not doing his job, and will likely lose his job. So the answer to the question whether I, or some other person can be objective is, yes, on condition that you put aside your biases and prejudices. The question has nothing to do with whether an event is mind-independent or not. It has to do with whether a person's understanding of some event can be independent of his personal beliefs about that event.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CAN I BE OBJECTIVE
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/02/2022 at 09:16:45