Objectivity

AKA that mysterious thing most journalists and scientists claim to seek.

I've seen a lot of arguments about it, but there are still some questions that I haven't found any satisfying answers to: Is objectivity possible? If not, is it worth trying? What about things like sex, drugs and religion where experiences or the lack of experience taints objectivity? Can we say something without distorting it with our opinions and feelings?

Also, any thoughts or comments about Objectivity in general.

I think objectivity is perfectly possible for some subset of possible questions. "Does 2+2=4?" has an objective answer of "True," but "Hermione or Ginny?" doesn't, because the question's meaning relies on the reader's opinions.

It's unlikely for anything to be truly objective. That would require a privileged view point, and we have no proof of that.

...but, we can make these so-called "rational decisions" based on (usually) consistent data, so we should keep trying to make decisions that are as close to objectively possible.

edited 25th Apr '11 2:55:48 PM by Ekuran

Certainly objectivity exists. The movement of the tides and planets, the temperature and humidity outside, how many people died at Gettysburg, the score of the latest sports game, and so on. These things you can measure and record, and they will always be the same no matter who is looking at it. Now, measurements can be incorrect or imprecise, but that is a fault in measurement, not a denial of objectivity.

Journalists are supposed to report facts. But in doing so they always engage in analysis of those facts, even if it's the decision to prioritize them. Ideally they should report without bias. That is, they need to report fairly and accurately. This also involves asking questions, doing research, and finding reliable sources. Which is something that certain media outlets have been doing less of than they should be.

I do not believe that true objectivity is possible, merely because all individuals perceive the world differently. What looks like a deep shade of blue to me, will surely not be the same shade of blue in another's eyes. Even if we can agree that it is a deep blue, the color probably appears slightly different to the other person. Looking on a wider scale, there's specific instances of people's senses working in different ways (e.g. those who are color blind vs. those who are not), and then there's the whole issue of memory. Memory, even within the same day it was recorded in the brain, is not an exact replica of the event, and every time it is remembered, it is re-encoded with even more differences than before.

The way that we all manage to perceive the world for the most part as the same is pretty astounding, but still, there's enough slight differences in the perceiving, encoding, and recall of each individual that makes complete objectivity impossible. Because we're not entirely on the same page with each other.