Objectivity.
- Thread starter Wizard of Whatever
- Start date
Sarkus:
"Many here contend that observation and experience are subjective,
I contend they are as objective as anything else, and in some cases more objective."
I briefly helped explain things to him, in terms I hoped would be easy for him to understand in the context of what he posted. What I wrote was not incorrect.
You came into the thread not with an agenda to help WoW, but - as is often the case with you - to stalk and try to harass me, like a troll. If you had not come with that agenda, then you could have easily written a very similar post - one without your usual supercilious, gloating claims about me being wrong about everything - that would have been unobjectionable. But that's not what you chose to do. You took the low road, as usual.
If you had honestly wanted to ask me whether I accept your position on objectivity and subjectivity or disagree with it, you could have done that. You would have found out that our respective opinions on these matters are in alignment. But you didn't bother to ask, did you? You thought you had found a point on which you could attack me; and that's all you ever wanted in this thread, isn't it - just like in every thread in which you seek me out.
I need you to stop that bullshit, Sarkus.
Wizard of Whatever started this thread and was clearly confused about what the objective and subjective features of an observation or experience are, and about how to tell one from the other. Here's part of what he wrote:
"Many here contend that observation and experience are subjective,
I contend they are as objective as anything else, and in some cases more objective."
I briefly helped explain things to him, in terms I hoped would be easy for him to understand in the context of what he posted. What I wrote was not incorrect.
You came into the thread not with an agenda to help WoW, but - as is often the case with you - to stalk and try to harass me, like a troll. If you had not come with that agenda, then you could have easily written a very similar post - one without your usual supercilious, gloating claims about me being wrong about everything - that would have been unobjectionable. But that's not what you chose to do. You took the low road, as usual.
It's hardly my fault that you went out of your way to interpret what I wrote in about the dumbest way you possibly could. This is what happens when you get into the habit of constantly posting in bad faith. It happens when you interact with people only to try to win some kind of battle you have in your head. It happens when you're unable to relate to other people like a civilised person.
If you had honestly wanted to ask me whether I accept your position on objectivity and subjectivity or disagree with it, you could have done that. You would have found out that our respective opinions on these matters are in alignment. But you didn't bother to ask, did you? You thought you had found a point on which you could attack me; and that's all you ever wanted in this thread, isn't it - just like in every thread in which you seek me out.
I need you to stop that bullshit, Sarkus.
Почему они их оплакивают? Тем, кто умер, уже ни холодно, ни жарко, ни больно, ни радостно... никак.
Сострадание - это побочный эффект. Вы смотрите на другого, и примеряете на себя его поведение, для того, чтобы лучше его понять, чтобы знать, чего от него ждать. Когда ему больно, вам невольно становится больно самому, потому что вы примерили его поведение на себя. Выживать стаей легче, и для этого не нужно сострадание. Есть множество видов животных, которые забивают и заклёвывают своих слабых, или больных сородичей, и делают это без всякого сострадания.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I have never studied philosophy, not formally. Not much informally either. I have only ever crossed paths with it studying mathematics. So Descartes, Russell, Cantor, Hilbert, Turing.
So I may be using the terms incorrectly.
In English language, objective just meant without ones personal feelings. Say a critique of an essay or poem.
Please do not troll.
Yes, JamesR, it was incorrect, as shown.
You flatter yourself. Stop stroking your ego, stop trolling me.
I have replied to numerous people in this thread because it's an interesting topic, JamesR. That you happened to post here, and post something that was wrong, is circumstantial.
Note how I have replied to WoW - even though he has me on ignore - to Pinball, to Seattle, on this subject. Oh, the harassment of them!
So stop with playing the victim of some non-existent agenda. It's pathetic.
You think post #10 is supercilious, gloating? It's simply correcting your errors. Educating you. For some reason you can dish that out but you can't take it. I have also corrected other people here on their understanding. They don't turn round and start lying that they were not wrong, or complaining of harassment, or that I'm gloating. Hopefully they see an opportunity to learn, to see another perspective.
You, though? Nah. You just see that it's me correcting you and knee-jerk your typical dishonest approach.
There is no interpretation to be had. Your first line is not up for negotiation on what you meant.
"As far as observation goes, it really depends on what is being observed." In philosophy this is wrong. Plain and simple. No interpretation needed. If there is some interpretation that means it is not wrong then it is so twisted and relies on non-standard terminology in philosophy that it would become irrelevant to philosophy.
No, JamesR, this is what happens when you assume bad faith from the outset. You see criticism from me and immediately assume bad faith. Until you stop doing that, you will continue to be the fault of all the flare ups that follow.
??? It happens when you assume bad faith. When was the last time there was a flare up (i.e. non-topic related) between me and, say, exchemist, or Pinball, or DaveC, or TheVat, or, frankly, anyone else. They all assume good faith in posters from the outset until shown otherwise. As I do of you, every time I first respond to you in a thread, as here. You then assume bad faith and it goes down hill. There is no battle in my head between us, JamesR, until you knee-jerk your dishonest, defensive response to whatever I post. That you can't even admit you're wrong about things, it's rather tragic. And what you see as incivility is nothing of the sort. It may be that I'm more direct, more straightforward, blunt even. I prioritise clarity over diplomacy, for sure. Any issue you have with that is your intolerance. Sure, once you have trashed any hope of an actual conversation it can get uncivil between us but that's mostly on you. You start this shit, JamesR.
Or you could have simply said, after my perfectly legitimate post that corrects what you were telling WoW, that you concur, and then happily explain what you were trying to do. But you chose not to do that. You decided to escalate the matter by lying. By trolling.
This is a discussion forum, JamesR. If someone posts something that is wrong, it is acceptable to say that it is wrong. There is no requirement to first check why the person wrote what they did. It was wrong. Correction follows. Simples.
And get over yourself. I don't "seek you out". As I keep saying, if you think I'm following you around looking to correct you, maybe it's because you write more bullshit than others that needs correcting. Otherwise, it is coincidence. But you, assuming bad faith, won't accept that. But that's on you.
There is no bullshit, other than what you start.
Your post to WoW remains incorrect for the reasons stated.
If you want to acknowledge those mistakes, rather than claim them still to be "error free", now would be a good time, because as it stands what you have written shows that you have a rather erroneous understanding of even basic philosophy.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Yep, objective has a range of meanings depending on the discipline. If you've crossed paths with Descartes and Russell, then you probably have some of the analytic philosophy tools and may be aware that philosophers will spend a three week conference defining "toothbrush." <G> I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread, so I can't say if or when anyone was using terms incorrectly. I agree that objective has a different shade of meaning in common parlance than in epistemology or metaphysics.
Metaphysical objectivity is associated with the philosophy called realism. So it is the belief that an external, objective reality exists, separate from consciousness. As someone's tagline here says, quoting Philip Dick, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Some phil-heads call it "mind-independence."
Then there is epistemological objectivity. Which is the possibility of gaining true, unbiased knowledge about that reality through reason and observation. I guess that's the one that's foundational to science. Even in soft fluffy branches of science, like social sciences, there's the belief that bias can be removed from the gathering of data and application of reason. (The test there is when social sciences can predict what people are going to do, either singly or in groups - like who they vote for or if they will keep buying turtleneck sweaters as the climate heats up)
Вся реальность, по большому счёту, существует только в вашей голове. Потому что вы видите, и слышите то, что уже находится в прошлом, т.е. формально не существует.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
No, your perception of reality is what exists only in your head. Reality, by its definition, is that which exists outside your head. And will keep existing even if you lose your head.
I get the feeling this is a frequent definition error in threads like this.
А сама голова? Она вне чего находится?
In a basket? In a grave? Doesn't matter. The world will continue without you (or me.)
In the environment that the head depicts itself as residing. Even though the external world of perception (and the head exhibited in it) is a representation, it's still the only version of existence we have access to. And that mind-dependent manifestation still works for survival. Evolution has honed it for the latter purpose, not for being truthful or offering apprehension of what underlies the appearances, or what ultimate being is. Reasoning and experiments can infer possibilities for the latter, but not necessarily cull those philosophical speculations down in number, or clinch a particular physical theory/model once and for all as the champion (since the threat of revision and alternative formulations seems to eternally hover even in science).
_
Well... Personally, I find this particular sub-forum best left ignored on this particular forum, for a number of reasons which I have elaborated upon elsewhere. But, here and now, in this particular instance, it's the matter of the "official" position (in a manner of speaking) being rather... confused which makes this a place best left ignored. Just kinda spoils things--for me, at least.
That said, this was not always the case, but things change over years and decades, I suppose--noone ever steps in the same river twice.
For the benefit of WoW and any others who are confused about the philosophical discussion, a good place to start might be with some dictionary definitions, which record how the terms "objective" and "subjective" are most often used in writing and conversation.
Objective (a.):
1. Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.
2. Emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation
3. Belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events
Also:
Objectivity (n.):
Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Subjective (a.):
1. Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.
2. (philosophy) of a mental act performed entirely within the mind.
Also:
Subjectiveness/subjectivity (n.):
Judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts
Objective (a.):
1. Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.
2. Emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation
3. Belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events
Also:
Objectivity (n.):
Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Subjective (a.):
1. Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.
2. (philosophy) of a mental act performed entirely within the mind.
Also:
Subjectiveness/subjectivity (n.):
Judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts
No, because hunger is a personal feeling/interpretation. It is not a phenomenon that can be observed by external observers.
That doesn't make it any the less subjective.
Verification is a separate matter. Your statement is problematic, but best to get the basics down before we delve deeper.
It sounds like, by "personal", you actually mean "subjective". It follows that your "personal objective experience" actually means "subjective objective experience", which is a contradiction in terms. It makes your statement nonsensical.
That's a nonsense statement. An "internal experience" is one that is inevitably subject to emotion and personal bias. It takes place in the mind of an individual. That, by definition, makes it subjective.WoW said:
Your thoughts are certainly subjective. They take place in the mind and are subject to personal bias.
Perceptions can be objective or subjective. It depends on whether they take place in the mind or whether they are based on observable phenomena.
Your posts are at the level of self-parody at this point.
Your experiences are never independent of your mind.
For clarity, I will break Sarkus's latest reply to me into two parts.
Part 1: On objectivity and subjectivity (i.e. the thread topic)
As we have seen above, several people here have distinguished between at least three different kinds of definitions/usages of the terms "subjective" and "objective". They are:
1. The common, everyday usages of those terms. (see, for example, my dictionary definitions, above).
2. The common way that scientists use those terms, which is not identical to the everyday use of the terms. My post #7 is an example of this usage, because (a) I am scientifically trained, and (b) sciforums is science-skewed discussion forum.
3. The way that philosophers use those terms. In fact, different philosophers themselves use the terms in different ways, depending on their particular attitude to realism. These matters have been touched on a little by other people in this thread, but there are massive philosophical debates about these questions in philosophy.
Now, here's what I wrote in post #7, again:
There is no error here, despite Sarkus's consistent whining.
Moreover, what I wrote is also entirely consistent with everyday usage of the terms. Hunger is a personal feeling. It is necessarily affected by personal feelings and bias. That the moon is in its waxing gibbous phase, on the other hand, has nothing to do with personal feelings or bias.
Post #7 does not mention any philosophical usages of the terms "subjective" and "objective". The word "philosophy" does not appear anywhere in that post. Not are any philosophical schools of thought discussed. Nor was there any call for including consideration of such things at that point in the thread.
Part 1: On objectivity and subjectivity (i.e. the thread topic)
Sarkus didn't think to try negotiation, because his assumption is usually that his way is the only way. Moreover, he assumes that his way is the right way, even when he doesn't know much about the subject matter under discussion.
As we have seen above, several people here have distinguished between at least three different kinds of definitions/usages of the terms "subjective" and "objective". They are:
1. The common, everyday usages of those terms. (see, for example, my dictionary definitions, above).
2. The common way that scientists use those terms, which is not identical to the everyday use of the terms. My post #7 is an example of this usage, because (a) I am scientifically trained, and (b) sciforums is science-skewed discussion forum.
3. The way that philosophers use those terms. In fact, different philosophers themselves use the terms in different ways, depending on their particular attitude to realism. These matters have been touched on a little by other people in this thread, but there are massive philosophical debates about these questions in philosophy.
Now, here's what I wrote in post #7, again:
This is entirely consistent with how scientists tend to use the terms "objective" and "subjective".James R said:
There is no error here, despite Sarkus's consistent whining.
Moreover, what I wrote is also entirely consistent with everyday usage of the terms. Hunger is a personal feeling. It is necessarily affected by personal feelings and bias. That the moon is in its waxing gibbous phase, on the other hand, has nothing to do with personal feelings or bias.
Post #7 does not mention any philosophical usages of the terms "subjective" and "objective". The word "philosophy" does not appear anywhere in that post. Not are any philosophical schools of thought discussed. Nor was there any call for including consideration of such things at that point in the thread.
It is not wrong.
Sarkus is incorrect.
Last edited:
Part 2: On Sarkus's trolling
However, the supercilious gloating only got fully under way in Sarkus's post #14, and it escalated from there.
It does not follow that just because there are usually signs of bad faith when he comments on something that there are always signs of bad faith. But it's justifiable to assume that leopards are unlikely to change their spots and worth keeping an eye out for leopards who are looking for every opportunity to pounce on prey.
I note that Sarkus pays special attention to me. He pretends that his criticisms of other people are equal-opportunity, when in reality he has particular fixations. He had developed an abiding grudge against me ever since he first came out of a particular discussion bruised and battered and generally not looking like a very nice person (due entirely to his own actions).
There's really no need to look any further than the content of the present thread to see that Sarkus is lying.
It's all on the record. Sarkus doesn't get to lie about it.
I trust that readers can see what Sarkus is trying to do here. Are you persuaded by his prevarications, readers? (Realistically, I know that, by this point, most of you have probably tuned out. In your position, so would I.)
If any further insight was needed into just how pathetically nasty and petty this man is, here it is.
I am not perfect, by any means, but at least I am self-aware and honest.
This is pure projection. Sarkus can't imagine how I could have a different attitude to the one he has, so he assumes that because he constantly needs to stroke his own ego, I must also need that. I literally just warned him for trolling and told him clearly that I need his trolling and personal attacks to stop, and then he pulls this stunt. Some people are very slow learners, but maybe with a little encouragement we can get Sarkus to the point where he can act like a civilised human being - at least to a level sufficient to be allowed to participate in this discussion forum while abiding by posting guidelines that he agreed to when he signed up. This remains to be seen.
To be clear, I have no issue with Sarkus participating in any thread, as long as he posts in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Here, Sarkus falsely claims that I have accused him of harassing other posters to this thread. I have not done that, as the record confirms.Note how I have replied to WoW - even though he has me on ignore - to Pinball, to Seattle, on this subject. Oh, the harassment of them!
Here, Sarkus continues with his personal attacks and trolling. This will stop, one way or the other.
There were no errors.
However, the supercilious gloating only got fully under way in Sarkus's post #14, and it escalated from there.
It doesn't occur to Sarkus that he is fallible. This is a serious character flaw. To be clear, though, sciforums has no rule against being egotistical.
Sarkus's accusation that I "started lying" in this thread is a baseless personal attack that breaches our site posting guidelines. His actual harassment similarly breaches our guidelines.
It is totally fair of me to assume bad faith whenever Sarkus addresses something I have written, because he has a history of stalking me around this forum and making attacks on me in bad faith.
It does not follow that just because there are usually signs of bad faith when he comments on something that there are always signs of bad faith. But it's justifiable to assume that leopards are unlikely to change their spots and worth keeping an eye out for leopards who are looking for every opportunity to pounce on prey.
I note that Sarkus pays special attention to me. He pretends that his criticisms of other people are equal-opportunity, when in reality he has particular fixations. He had developed an abiding grudge against me ever since he first came out of a particular discussion bruised and battered and generally not looking like a very nice person (due entirely to his own actions).
I invite readers to judge this for themselves. The handy thing about sciforums is that the past doesn't vanish. It remains accessible to all.
There's really no need to look any further than the content of the present thread to see that Sarkus is lying.
Ironic, since clarity without diplomacy is more or less exactly what incivility is.
Notice how everything is always the other guy's error, the other guy's problem, the other guy's failure, with Sarkus? Apart from being an egotistical bore, the man has no capacity for self-reflection.
This is thread is an example. Sarkus started his shit in post #7, escalated in post #14 and then continued to escalate. Once Sarkus gets going, he can't stop yourself. He has to be stopped, every single time.
It's all on the record. Sarkus doesn't get to lie about it.
Accusations of lying should be supported by evidence of lying. Otherwise, they are just personal attacks.
Of course.
I trust that readers can see what Sarkus is trying to do here. Are you persuaded by his prevarications, readers? (Realistically, I know that, by this point, most of you have probably tuned out. In your position, so would I.)
That is not what this is about. Sarkus is trying to insult me again.
A half-truth. I'm easy to find on the forum. An extensive search is not required. But that's not the point, is it? The point is that Sarkus hangs around like a bad smell, looking for opportunities to make niggling personal attacks on me, constantly. It's annoying and it is what trolls do.
There we have it, folks. An outright, knowing, lie, deliberately told.
If any further insight was needed into just how pathetically nasty and petty this man is, here it is.
Notice how the troll is never accountable for his own behaviour. It's okay. If he can't/won't self-regulate, he can be regulated externally.
Another lie, deliberately and knowingly told.
I am not perfect, by any means, but at least I am self-aware and honest.
Last edited:
Please do not troll.
An you'r also fun an funny