Is it Possible to be Objective?

Remove all ads!

I don't believe so. No matter what argument or debate is in question, our human biases will always cloud our judgement and cause us to see things in the way we want to see them.

Your thoughts?

 

One can be truely objective about a subject only if they have no emotional response to it.

Emotion - love, hate, fear, etc... cloud objectivity and poison reason.

Ironically, it is those properties, which make us the most "human", that threaten us the most.

 

Is it possible to answer this question "yes", and then give a well-thought out argument stating your case? The argument itself will make you take a strong stand to the answer "yes", and therefore, you will be hard to sway from that position, meaning that you aren't entirely objective. I'm not being negative here Rastor, I'm just saying I don't think it's possible to answer your question "yes" unless you give more precise parameters.

 

No, it's not. That is, if something is completly irrelevant, than one can be objectiv about it, as it leaves someone cold. As for example the calculation of the speed of a stone falling to a ground. The result is completly irrelevant. That is, if you argued in a certain way and you made presumptions about it and you have the feeling, your reputation is somehow linked to the result. Dam, that ends in a fight.

Or many things are just too complicated to have anything like "objectivity", as only very vague presumptions are possible, and this presumptions are tight to prejudices, and prejudices are close and dear.

 

I don't think so. Our life experiences will invariably cause us to put a certain slant on any issue, thus creating bias. Even if we are initially unfamiliar with an issue, we will gain familiarity by drawing comparisons to issues that we are familiar with, thereby introducing bias.

I think the best we can do is recognise where we might not be objective, and try to minimise the effects. Easier said than done, though.

 

I've already formed an opinion about being objective.

 

Aldeth, I can't think of any argument proving that it is possible for people to remove the bias from their opinions. Hence, a truly "objective" and therefore a "true" debate is therefore impossible to create.

While many people may pretend that they are attempting to be open-minded, the truth is is that people tend to be stubborn in their opinions. Considering this, is there any point at even debating, as you'll never change your opponent's viewpoint on a subject?

 

Death Rabbit will do GOOD on jury selection day.

You can be objective, but there are times when you want some subjectivity in there.



Elbow deep in someone's abdomen, fishing around for shrapnel and bullets, is a good time to be objective.
Talking to them about their spinal injuries, afterwards, is a good time to be subjective. However, it's makes things really tough.

 

I am a vulcan...

 

@ Rastor - that's exactly my point - and what I'm asking for that matter. I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to answer "usually not".

 

Nobleman:
What does that have to do with anything?

BTW, Objectivity and Stubborness are not related. In order to be truly objective, we would have to remove all of our ambition, prejudices, and beliefs. That is not possible, therefore it is never possible to be objective in anything.

 

Typically, I'd say yes, but when I think about it, it is possible. People that just don't care anymore about life, about anything, can be objective about what is being talked about since they don't care; they won't take sides, they usually won't offer any other opinion, mainly because they don't have an opinion on that matter, or any other, really. Those are rare cases though, and those people tend to kill themselves soon afterward, but still.

 

I'd argue that those people's depression causes them to not care about anything so they wouldn't be willing to put forth the effort to actually determine which course of action is the correct one. Therefore, although their subjectivity may not be as strong as as in a normal person, they don't really care at all about hitting the perfectly objective answer; rather, the depressed person simply reaches the conclusion that requires the least effort to arrive at.

 

It is not a case of absolutes. It seems a false dichotomy is set up here wherein if we agree that 100% objectivity is probably not possible(or at least unlikely) then we just throw our hands up and lump ALL of the "subjectives" together and give equal credence to their arguments.

I do not deal in certainties so much as likelihoods. The one real guard we have against bias is skepticism/ critical thinking. Ct/skepticism is a sort of system of checks and balances to keep bias from having undue effect on our examinations/investigations. One cannot magically remove personal biases but, if one is following the rules of logical discourse & critical thought then one CAN(to a great degree) circumvent those biases.

 

Impartial yes, objective hardly ever.

 

Vulcans base their opinions on logic, which is an extension of objectiveness. Of course when feelings are involved one assumes to analyze them with objectivity but behave subjective, since the way one tries to be objective is purely subjective; If you are a Vulcan that is.

 

Critical thinking is just as subjective as anything else, because more often than not the man himslef is not objective, so whichever process he uses will be shadowed by this, such as what can be excpeted as proof, what requires proof, what proof even is, and so on. These are all represented in very different and opposing philosophical schools. Depending upon which the skeptic ascribes to, will undermine his judgement.

The only way to not be subjective is to not be. But it can be possible I think, it can be achieved, but not by anyone here by any means, if it is even achieveable by a mortal mind. The things is, even this is subjective, it is immpossible to argue whether or not anything can be objective as if we say that we are subjective, then that judgement itself must be.

However, I certainly do believe, as I said, that it is possible. Superceding emotion is a likely step, and possible, as is the process of exisiting in conciousness greater than your own. To me the closest one can reach being objective is a true mystic, as the ties to material perception are severed, and truth is experienced. But we shall always be limited by the fact that we are the one percieving, even if that perception is the universe itself, thus we shall always be subjective. And the absolute knows itself not, for to do so would be finite, and therefore to no longer be absolute.

 

Technically, you would need full knowledge and full freedom from emotions and external influence. One coud also argue that you shouldn't have had any experience at all, as experience forms preconvictions. Thus it's impossible to be fully objective for a human.

You can be independent if you don't submit to external influence and impartial if you're not emotionally involved or have cooled down emotions. Independent and impartial is close to objective, but it's limited still.

 

Logic is often viewed as being completely objective and within a given system it is. Using logic isn't really completely objective because logic is based ultimately on a set of assumptions. The assumptions one uses for a logic system is subject to personal prejudice and as a result results derived from logic aren't as objective as they first seem.

 

The funniest thing about logic is that it's based on human perception and made to regulate the evaluation of data received from perception of actual facts. Therefore, logic can hardly be used to prove or disprove facts, logically. Logically, no logical proof is certain. Which I have proved logically now. Which means I may not be right as my proof is subject to the same flaws as logic in general. So what have I got except sore throat?