Talk:Objectivity (philosophy)
|
|
Moved this from the article:
- Overly enthousiastic persuit of objectivity also leads to the use of ensembles of e.g. universes in conventional statistics. Bayesian probability ensures objectivity with much less complex concepts. It is gaining in popularity.
I am sure it means something, but I'm not sure what. The Anome
- I know something of the topic. "Ensemble" in the sense used here is a physicists' term, not used by statisticians, and Edwin Jaynes, a physicist, used it often when he wrote about statistics. A reader of Jaynes' works might get the impression that statisticians use this term. A reader of Jaynes' works might also think that Bayesian's generally advocate objectivity -- the opposite of the truth: Jaynes was an "objective (or "logical") Bayesian"; most Bayesians are overtly subjectivist. Jaynes was a charismatic writer and his readers often know nothing of his topics except what they learn from him, and therefore do not know that Jaynes' conventions are not conventional among the practitioners of the fields he wrote about. My guess is that one such reader wrote the passage above.
- But why are the philosophy mavens on Wikipedia not working on this page?? Michael Hardy 22:38 25 May 2003 (UTC)
The current synopses of epistemic and metaphysical objectivity appear to be semantically identical: If we assume the following as being adequate substitutes:
(objects and events) => (entities)
(anyone's awareness) => (anyone's perceptions)
(do not depend) => (independent)
(are) => (exist)
(is the recognition that) => (means that)
(To say that 'x exist o' means that they 'y') => ('o' means that 'x y')
We can recombine the two sentences to say: Objectivity means that entities exist independent of anyone's awareness of them. (20040302)
- I disagree. When a lawyer asks a prospective juror "Can you be objective in judging this case?" he's talking about an epistemic virtue. The sentence Objectivity means that entities exist independent of anyone's awareness of them is badly formed and confused. It's like those sentences I've sometimes fixed that say "In physics, inertial mass is a particular thing's resistance to acceleration" or "... mass means a thing resists accelaration", rather than "... and object's inertial mass is its resistance to acceleration". Michael Hardy 20:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I won't argue the case - merely to say that the current article is an unmitigated disaster - a complete mess. It is not meaningful to the layperson, and very dubious for philosophy altogether. I won't defend the sentence - I was just pointing out that the basic structure was identical. I certainly agree that both Epistemic and Metaphysical objectivity differ, and have their respective schools of thought. The tension between them also would warrant discussion. (20040302)
- Usually I sympathize with complaints to this effect, but I fail to see that this one is a mess. Why is it not meaningful to the layperson, if one understands "layperson" to mean an intelligent non-philosopher? Michael Hardy 22:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)