de_nacisse: I think you'll need a distinction between the objective and the inter-subjective. peer-review and cross-checking rely on multiple subjects/knowers/observers it is not objective per the definition.

We establish independence of the individual mind by cross-checking by other means, such as by instrumentation. How did you think it was done?

de_nacisse: people are initiated into the rites and practices of the objective (as they are into any priesthood)…

It's like any other learning. Nor does it require holding any particular metaphysical view.

de_nacisse: but there is a distinction between training/learning to be objective and being objective.

Yes, just like there's a difference between learning medicine and being a doctor.

de_nacisse: but being objective is opposed to the knowers trained-judgments (that would be to mix the knower with the thing to be known, which is not objective).

No one is mixing the knower with the thing to be known. You'll have to describe how you think we can establish something as objective.

I think you'll need a distinction between the objective and the inter-subjective. peer-review and cross-checking rely on multiple subjects/knowers/observers it is not objective per the definition. part of becoming a scientist is, as you say, learning the tools and methods of the objective - instrumentation the tool and loss of the subject the method. people are initiated into the rites and practices of the objective (as they are into any priesthood) and that requires training and acculturation; but there is a distinction between training/learning to be objective and being objective. the first (the learning/training) requires acculturation and such, but being objective is opposed to the knowers trained-judgments (that would be to mix the knower with the thing to be known, which is not objective).

fifth monarchy man: Can there be any more proof of the point I’ve been making in this thread?

You're advancing another strawman. No one has ever said that vision was infallible.

If this is written down somewhere, I'll take a look. Meanwhile, constantly rehashing the same argument and ignoring counterarguments doesn't advance your case.

Are you going to bother to respond to de_nacisse and my response?

Was the word "objective" in the video? (Please provide a transcript.)

I provide a written quote and then a video that can be seen and heard over and over if need be then Todd posts the same quote yet again and people still miss it with their” primary” senses, the ones that they claim provide objective information about the world.

Can there be any more proof of the point I’ve been making in this thread? Sorry but the Irony was just to thick to pass up

Peace

de_nacisse: Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison in Objectivity define objectivity

Thank you, de_nacisse. The question raised is what does it means to say something is "objective". You have provided a stronger argument and point of departure than fifth monarchy man's constant repetition of the same fallacies. (By the way, you seem to disagree with fifth monarchy man. Is this disagreement something you will just ignore?)

Daston and Galison: Objectivity has not always defined science.

Probably true, though early philosophers (e.g. Plato) grappled with issues akin to objectivity.

Daston and Galison: Nor is objectivity the same as truth or certainty,

That is correct. Objectivity is a vantage point.

Daston and Galison: and it is younger than both.

Quite so. The concept of objectivity has evolved, and has only taken its modern form in the scientific age.

Daston and Galison: Objectivity preserves the artifact or variation that would have been erased in the name of truth; it scruples to filter out the noise that undermines certainty.

Independence from the individual mind. That is the definition we have been using (though we can leave out the phrase "name of truth" as extraneous).

Daston and Galison: To be objective is to aspire to knowledge that bears no trace of the knower — knowledge unmarked by prejudice or skill, fantasy or judgment, wishing or striving.

That is the goal of objectification. (Of course, methodologies are never perfect and there are always artifacts of the observer.)

de_nacisse: objectivity then doesn't mean trained judgement …

That I disagree with. Objectivity is certainly something garnered by training and acculturation. Part of becoming a scientist is learning the tools and methods of objectivity, including peer review, cross-checking with multiple observers and multiple methodologies, and the extensive use of instruments.

An aethete might say that this training can numb the spiritual sense.

de_nacisse: … or true-to-nature

This is correct. This delves into the problem of induction, but *given induction*, then objectivity can be shown to provide *consistent* information within *limited domains*. We can say that a particular phenomenum is (within reason) objectively verified. You can reject whether this determination is meaningful in a larger sense, but not that it is called objective per the definition.

And per this definition of objectivity, sensus divinitatis is strictly subjective.

fifth monarchy man: I thought I’d link to a concise explanation of the only objective way to establish objectivity.

Was the word "objective" in the video? (Please provide a transcript.)

Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison in Objectivity define objectivity thus:

Objectivity has not alway defined science. Nor is objectivity the same as truth or certainty, and it is younger than both. Objectivity preserves the artifact or variation that would have been erased in the name of truth; it scruples to filter out the noise that undermines certainty. To be objective is to aspire to knowledge that bears no trace of the knower — knowledge unmarked by prejudice or skill, fantasy or judgment, wishing or striving. Objectivity is blind sight, seeing without inference, interpretation, or intelligence, only in the mid-nineteenth century did scientists begin to yearn for this blind sight, the "objective view" that embraces accidents and asymmetries…

objectivity then doesn't mean trained judgement or true-to-nature… and so subjectivity is not opposed to either trained judgment or true-to-nature…

This probabilistic notion is exactly why Vision is objective (because it highly correlates to objective reality, i.e. has a high objective probability) and SD is merely subjective (it only correlates to your cultural indoctrination).

The "only correlates to your cultural indoctrination" comment well illustrates Gordy Slack's point that you are squandering any science argument you wish to advance through a futile attempt to depict fmm's experience as illusory- the effect of the word indoctrination. It won't fly and worse yet conveys the impression that you are more interested in debunking religion than in advancing science.

fmm: I thought I’d link to a concise explanation of the only objective way to establish objectivity.

Needless to say I disagree with Plantinga's philosophy concerning warrant, but that quote you provide seems like a good one for separating objective from subjective. To be objective a sense must have a high objective probability. Above I used the term "highly correlate to an objective reality" to express this exact same notion. This probabilistic notion is exactly why Vision is objective (because it highly correlates to objective reality, i.e. has a high objective probability) and SD is merely subjective (it only correlates to your cultural indoctrination). Both sensory experiences are subjective, but one sense has been shown to highly correlate to an objective reality giving us both justification and warrant to form knowledge using that sense.

So just in case anyone is still checking in to this dead thread and has come to believe that if you reject Zach's group's socal construt you are left with out a way to establish any objective facts.

I thought I’d link to a concise explanation of the only objective way to establish objectivity.

Quote:

The objective probability of a belief being true, being that it is produced under the described conditions is high

end quote

Peace