belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
It's quite a simple question, but answering it is a little complicated. First we need to define what "objective" or "objectivity" means. To make the discussion somewhat easier we'll define it as: if there's an apple on the table and 10 people can see the apple and agree that there's indeed an apple on the table, then saying "there's an apple on the table" is objective. That is opposed to any other claim, such as "there is an illusion of an apple due to magicks" or something of the sort.
I feel that in this day and age with the availability of all sorts of information from different sources due to internet this question is especially important. There are many examples of scores of people believing outrageous claims because of their subjective feelings. All sorts of conspiracy "theories"*, flat Earth "theories"*
The questions I'm asking in this discussion are: do you strive towards being an objective person? If so, why? If not, why? Do you think an average person should try to be as objective as possible; also why? What analysis techniques do you use in determining the validity of claims and such? Do you think the society at large should strive towards being objective? What negative or positive effects for the human race do you see the average Joe being objective or lacking objectivity having? What aspects of life are there OK to be subjective in? What do you do in the case someone you know claims stuff you can easily prove to be wrong?
I myself try to be as objective as possible. There are fields where objectivity has practically no relevance, such as art, certain types of literature and so on; but anything where other human beings' condition is affected, one needs to be objective. Medicine, politics, science in general. The main way I try to maintain my objectivity is by being very careful with what sources I trust for my information. Peer-reviewed articles for science-related stuff, more or less trusted sources for other info; and most importantly, cross-checking multiple sources, because even the best ones can get it wrong at times. In my book, if like 5 sources have about the same consensus, then the information is most likely correct.
I might add more to this thread if anything comes to mind.
Looking forward to your replies.
*The word "theory" in science, and hence everywhere else, is defined as a concept that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, the theories of gravitation, electromagnetism etc. Why I'm forced to add this footnote is because the word "theory" in simple language has been abused to mean a concept that has been proposed but not proven a la "theory of evolution" (in reality, volution is as proven as gravity) used by creationsts/religious people to downplay the indeed concrete theory of evolution. In this thread the word theory will be used in its proper meaning.
I feel that in this day and age with the availability of all sorts of information from different sources due to internet this question is especially important. There are many examples of scores of people believing outrageous claims because of their subjective feelings. All sorts of conspiracy "theories"*, flat Earth "theories"*
The questions I'm asking in this discussion are: do you strive towards being an objective person? If so, why? If not, why? Do you think an average person should try to be as objective as possible; also why? What analysis techniques do you use in determining the validity of claims and such? Do you think the society at large should strive towards being objective? What negative or positive effects for the human race do you see the average Joe being objective or lacking objectivity having? What aspects of life are there OK to be subjective in? What do you do in the case someone you know claims stuff you can easily prove to be wrong?
I myself try to be as objective as possible. There are fields where objectivity has practically no relevance, such as art, certain types of literature and so on; but anything where other human beings' condition is affected, one needs to be objective. Medicine, politics, science in general. The main way I try to maintain my objectivity is by being very careful with what sources I trust for my information. Peer-reviewed articles for science-related stuff, more or less trusted sources for other info; and most importantly, cross-checking multiple sources, because even the best ones can get it wrong at times. In my book, if like 5 sources have about the same consensus, then the information is most likely correct.
I might add more to this thread if anything comes to mind.
Looking forward to your replies.
*The word "theory" in science, and hence everywhere else, is defined as a concept that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, the theories of gravitation, electromagnetism etc. Why I'm forced to add this footnote is because the word "theory" in simple language has been abused to mean a concept that has been proposed but not proven a la "theory of evolution" (in reality, volution is as proven as gravity) used by creationsts/religious people to downplay the indeed concrete theory of evolution. In this thread the word theory will be used in its proper meaning.
Last edited: