Is it Possible to be Objective?

Remove all ads!

Chevalier, logic is a branch of philosophy, which you may or may not know. As such, any practitioner of logic should be well aware of any inherent dangers.
*****************
Experience doesn't necessarily mean predisposition at all. I am perfectly capable of identifying in my own mind whether I am being subjective or not. I think that only the weak-minded *cannot* be objective. I can identify each thread of my own thinking as I apply it to a problem and apply conscious effort to deciding whether that thread is colouring my judgement or not, just as another listener could.
The problem lies in other aspects of philosophy, i.e. epistemology (the resources and limits of knowledge). For example, if we are deciding what is the best course of action for dealing with a criminal, one might ask, irrespective of objectivity, whether the person has committed a crime at all (on, for example, the grounds that men made the laws and the laws of human rights dictate that no man has greater rights than any other - meaning that what one man said was wrong to do, another can say is not wrong). We can be as logical as a machine in our objectivity but we would still have problems.

The trick certainly isn't to have someone who is apathetic e.g. a depressive, trying to be objective. Neither does it lie in being purely logical. In my opinion, the trick lies in applying *wisdom* based on the facts (as far as these can be determined) i.e. what is the best (or the least bad) course of action in terms of morality i.e. what matters most in any decision are the needs of the many (not the *wants* of anyone). The personal motives of one can be identified by another.

Further to my bringing epistemology into the debate: just as anyone can say "You aren't being *completely* objective about x", I can say: "How do you know I'm not?"

Also, even if one were completely objective, ignorance would be a factor - what value would such a person's objectivity be then? And how would anyone know was the least ignorant?

 

When I say that people CAN be objective through critical analysis, i am not saying that we are able to eradicate our biases. I am saying we are able to recognise and aknowledge them and keep them in check. If I didn't do this then I would likely be on the same side of the paranormal issues as Manus, since, if I have any bias it is more than likely toward such things existing(that is to say I would really, really like forn psi, ghosts, UFOs, magic etc. to exist and it took painful years and enormous will to make the move towards skepticism).

 

I define 3 as higher than 2. Logically any number added to three will be higher than the same number added to 2, not matter what prejudice or human perception Teufelchen and chevalier puts into it. The logic in numbers is universal, and any logic that can be show with this cannot be subject to any prejudice.

What you think about is logic based on feelings, right?, which is a branch of fuzzy logic, which also covers when someone applies mathematics wrong and still sound convincing. But this is not the fault of logic in mathematics, but the fault of men.

And to my knowledge Vulcans do only look at life through the reason of statistics and numbers. And they are aware of when they are not. A good point RuneQuester and Keldor.