So to correct that “horribly wrong” statement, I would rephrase it to say, in regards to presenting a case for an external aspect of reality, it seems to me the evidence to justify the case in question would, if not always, almost always need to be objective in nature.
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, it seems to me you’re talking about personal experience, not evidence?
Just as bad a the starting quote. We build our understanding of reality primarily through our subjective experience of it. Our objective understanding of it, in fact, depends on the subjective.
Personal experience is evidence. When we make our witness of our personal experience public, it becomes public evidence, though of a different sort than direct experience. It becomes a public report of a personal experience, which in fact is itself objective evidence.
Let’s go back to my original statement.
…as far as I can tell, evidence always has to be objective in some way, otherwise I don’t see how it would be evidence.
Let’s see if I can put it into context a bit. Now I’m talking about justifying a position on external reality to others, not to myself. So in such a setting, if I present to you something that is internal to me, and even though I believe it to be true, it has not been objectively confirmed in some manner, would you considered that just my opinion, or would you accept that as evidence to support my position? If evidence, maybe you could give me an example of such a case where it would be evidence and not just an opinion?
Just to clarify, I do agree that all human knowledge is obviously based on internal human experience. But I don’t think that is what’s at issue here.
OK. I think what you’re referring to @swamidass is anecdotal evidence, which includes personal experience. So if that’s the case, you are correct in saying that there are subjective types of evidence.
And based on that, I admit my statement was too broad and should have been more narrowly defined. So if I’ve understood your point correctly, would you agree that in the context of supporting an argument that the evidence would have to be objective in nature?
No I would not agree.
OK. So what kind of subjective evidence would you consider as adding support to an argument?
I realize my last question may have been too broad, so I’ll try a different question.
Would you agree that, generally speaking, evidence that is objective in nature would add significantly more weight to an argument in comparison to evidence that is subjective in nature?
In the general abstract case “no.” In some narrow particular cases, “yes.” Usually the answer is “no.”
So would your position be that, in the generic sense, they both carry equal weight as evidence?
No. It depends on the details. There is no meaningful general case.
OK. In any specific case, could the weight of the evidence itself be in any way influenced by whether it was objective or subjective? If so, is it possible it could make a significant difference?
I’m not sure the distinctions you are making are helpful, which is why it hard to talk about.
Almost every fact has potential to be both subjective and objective. Ultimately we all come to conclusions based on our personal experience with reality. Objective components of reality have potential to be common touch points in all our experiences, but they are interpreted through a subjective lens. Some correct ideas are properly basic, and can be very difficult to justify with objective evidence.
What makes an argument strong? Basic features such as coherence and truthful engagement with reality, and working from common starting points. That is far more important then the mythology of objectivity.
I"m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that objectivity is a myth?
I’m saying that the whole premise of positivism is wrong. There is not a clean way to divide up facts into objective and subjective, and objective is not necessarily privileged over subjective any way.
Experience is how we build our own beliefs, and how we persuade others. Experience, here, I mean very broadly, to include evidence of many sorts: logic, reason, public observables, private observables, relationships, etc. The way to persuade people with common experiences, often in the context of relationships, but also in the form of creating common public touch points.
What you mean by objective, it seems, would be better understood as “public evidence we can all see.” At the same time, we would acknowledge that there is also “private evidence” that is only public in limited way, when tell others about it.
@dga471 perspective on the Resurrection may be helpful for you. We believe there is clear public evidence that points to the Resurrection, but we also understand it may not be convincing with out private evidence as well. There is a mutual reinforcement of the two types of evidence, and both are important. I would not privilege one over because both are important.
First of all, I’m not promoting positivism here. I recognize subjective experience, as well as other fields of study as various forms of knowledge. Also what I’m suggesting is all within the context of science which by definition is confined to investigating physical aspects of reality.
And I agree there isn’t a clean way, if by that you mean exact, to divide between objective and subjective, although I don’t think it’s as big a deal as it’s made out to be. But I think there needs to be some way, at least a general framework within science, to distinguish degrees of reliability of evidence, ensure accountability, and engender trust.
You suggest coherence and truthful engagement with reality, and working from common starting points. Those are pretty broad terms. How does that play out in reality as far as distinguishing between reliability of different types of evidence, providing accountability, and engendering trust?
To me, the simplest, most obvious and straightforward approach is distinguishing between the objective (public) and the subjective (private). Because to my way of thinking objective evidence is overall the more reliably representative of reality between the two, and for that reason is usually less in dispute, i.e., more trustworthy.
And I’m under the impression that this is what was traditionally the way science operated. In fact, providing that were the case, I was quite surprised to find out that it seems to no longer rely on these distinctions. From what I can gather the reasoning behind it seems to be more perspective oriented than concern for proper scientific representation and accuracy.
The issue I’m raising isn’t specifically about persuasion. It’s more about a framework for intellectual integrity. I think everyone would agree that the objective nature of the evidence is what initially drove the public’s confidence in science. Even if the details behind it weren’t fully understood, it was very hard to deny what was objectively evident to all.
I think also most would agree that something that has been confirmed objectively in some fashion enjoys considerably more confidence in its veracity than something that depends solely, or even partially, on subjective opinion, be it considered evidence or not, even if it is an unconfirmed scientific theory. Experts disagree all the time on the subjective interpretation of objective evidence. Look at all of the conflicting interpretations of QM. But how often do they dispute the actual objective evidence?
Mind you, we’re talking historical evidence now. But as far as I know, even in history there are ways to distinguish between what can be considered as fact and what can’t be, and what might or might not be. It’s by no means clean, but it has been developed over the centuries and been shown to be pretty reliable.
And regarding persuasion, as I already mentioned, that’s not the particular issue I’m raising. Of course what is persuasive to one person isn’t always as persuasive to another. And subjective experience can make a big difference in persuading individuals who are inclined that way.
But my concern here is not particularly with personal experience and persuasion, but about having some kind of a framework in science to make general distinctions to help facilitate intellectual investigation in discerning between what is objective facts, and what is subjective ideas.
I agree with you here and would say this is a primary concern at Peaceful Science. This just has nothing to do with subjective vs. objective.
It is broad but we have been working it out in concrete ways. Have you followed any of my work here?
No, here is where I part from you. This approchach is neither simple nor effective. There is a set of well tested principles we use to accomplished the goals we both share. On advantage is that it avoids the endless objective/subjective debate, which goes no where and solves nothing.
I’m not sure it ever worked this way. Have you ever taken a class on epistemology? It might help you.
No, I disagree.
No. Can you provide me a link to where you deal with it?
Scientific Objectivity (From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):
The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry. Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.
So taken from what you said I would assume you disagree with this. Or was I just not clear in how I expressed it?
Oh I agree this is a common perceptions among non scientists in the public. That doesn’t make it right, and I personally reject this epistemology. So should you. It is obviously false.
Side comment: I think there is something to be said about the “objectivity” of science. But as the SEP article says, there’s a lot of debate over what “objective” actually means, and whether it is defensible at all. In this thread, you have chosen to define objective as “public” and subjective as “internal”. Those definitions are too simplistic, vague, and bordering on circularity. (The same goes for your definitions of “direct” vs “indirect” and other terms. This is why I don’t think the discussion was going much anywhere.) If you want to dialogue substantially about scientific objectivity, my advice would be to read the SEP article in full, think carefully about your own views, and decide where they fit. Then we can start talking. This would give the discussion some framing and grounding.
In fact, perhaps reading the SEP article together could be a good exercise and discussion starter for this forum.