Oh, OK. It’s obviously false? I’m assuming you’re referring to objectivity as a framework in general. So with that assumption in mind, let me see if I understand where you’re coming from.
Thinking a bit more about it I think this is how I would define subjective vs objective evidence.
Objective evidence would be something that has been confirmed either empirically, logically, or mathematically, and therefore is generally not subject to bias.
Subjective evidence would be something that has yet to be confirmed either empirically, logically, or mathematically, and therefore is generally subject to bias.
Empirical confirmation would apply to physical aspects, logical confirmation would apply to inferred aspects, and mathematical confirmation would apply to equation related aspects.
Now I think your objection is that there will be significant contention regarding when something is considered confirmed or not? If so, is it more centered around inferences? It would seem like empirical and mathematical confirmation would be generally more straightforward. What do you think?
I don’t think this is true. Evidence can be anything that convinces you a claim is true. This can include subjective evidence. For example, many Christians claim to have had personal experiences that convince them of God’s existence. This would be subjective evidence.
If you think it is a good looking dog, that would be subjective data.
You and another person could make a digital recording of the bark, and at that point you would both have objective data. You could compare the digital recording to other recordings of barking dogs and see if there is a statistical match which would be objective evidence for the presence of a dog.
If you said that it smells like a dog in the room, or if hair looks like dog hair then that would be subjective evidence. If you were able to get DNA sequence from hair follicles and matched it to the domestic dog, then that would be objective evidence that supports the presence of dog hair. Others could also sequence the same DNA and reach the same conclusion. Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective data in this case?
You don’t subjectively infer. You just infer. It is the evidence that is either objective or subjective.
There can’t be 100% objective evidence because we are all experiencing it through our subjective senses. This has led some to use the term intersubjective which are experiences that appear to be consistent between people. If we assume that we humans are able to rationally measure a consistent universe, then intersubjective is tentatively assumed to be objective for the purposes of inferences.
What I think we are ultimately aiming for is a set of premises that we can all agree are true so that we can collectively follow those premises to a conclusion. Empiricism is perhaps the best system we have for collecting an agreed upon data set. However, people are still free to follow their own premises to their own conclusions without needing agreement from others.
For my part, I would say it is definitely false. People seem to think that putting on a lab coat somehow erases any bias you may have (unless you work for a corporation, then people assume you’re a corporate sellout). Scientists are still people and, as such, are susceptible to biases, motivations, etc. I believe everybody is biased and that our biases play out in everything we do; however, some people actively try to work against or minimize their biases.
I’m not a scientist, so I’m not sure if this is helpful to the discussion, but I don’t see how degrees of “confirmation” has anything to do with subjective or objective. This is how I consider “subjective” and “objective”.
A statement is “objective” if the truth of it is in the object. “That window is made of glass” is an objective statement, because the truth of it is in the window, not in the speaker.
A statement is “subjective” if the truth is in the subject. “I like glass windows” is a subjective statement because the truth is in the subject (me).
I haven’t really considered objective vs subjective in relation to evidence, but I would suppose that “objective evidence” would be evidence that is valid or invalid for any individual (regardless of whether it is convincing, that is a different matter). Referring to previous examples, I would agree that a lab test showing that the hair samples from the room were from a dog would be objective. The lab results are the same, regardless of who is reading them and the tests can be examined, repeated, verified, etc. Believing in God, at least in part, because of a personal experience with Him, is subjective evidence. I may be convinced of my own experience, but there is no way for you to examine or probe my experience.
To me, something is subjective or objective regardless of it’s truth value. If I say “the sky is red” that is an objective statement. If I provide a picture of a blue sky as evidence, it is objective evidence. Both the statement and the evidence are objectively false (the statement is untrue and the evidence does not support the statement).
I should have said “subject” instead of “speaker”. The truth is in the “window” in the sense that, the window is either made of glass or it isn’t. If it is made of glass, that fact is true for everyone (even if they don’t agree). It can’t be made of glass “for me” and made of clear plastic “for you”.
Either I like strawberry ice cream or I don’t. If I do, then it is true for everyone; people will understand that I will be happier if they give me strawberry ice cream as opposed to say, pistachio, even if they themselves like pistachio more.
The statement “I like strawberry ice cream” is subjective - it is true if the person saying it likes strawberry ice cream. The statement “Daniel Ang likes strawberry ice cream” is objective, you either do or you don’t, though in terms of evidence, it’s difficult to probe the truth value. You could easily skew the “data” if you wanted.
You can be neutral on strawberry ice cream. Kind of like sure “if strawberry is all you got, I’ll have a little”. Or “if my choice is between strawberry and green tea ice cream, I’ll take the strawberry” But if strawberry is the only choice, and I am forced to pay $100 for it, well I would say “keep your strawberry ice cream”.
Seems like subjective is being interpreted in different ways here. To me subjective is mind (not brian) dependent. Objective is mind (not brain) independent.
If my brain is registering a smell, that is mind independent. If there’s a smell in the room, it’s just there regardless of my thoughts about it. If my faculties are functioning normally, they will detect the smell.
If there’s hair in the room, it’s mind independent. If my faculties are functioning normally then I will see and feel the hair. It’s not dependent on whether or not my mind thinks it’s there. So it is objective evidence.
What would be subjective would be the inference of what the evidence points to, because inferring is a mental exercise that can bring different results depending on a persons individual perspective.
Wait, so all of these statements are subjective:
“I am a human.”
“I am male.”
“I am alive.”
“I am thinking.”
“I typed this text you are reading now.”
“I exist.”
Again, what is the purpose of the subjective/objective distinction again?
The purpose is to create the fiction of objective and unquestionable facts.
@dga471 as an immigrant, moving between cultures and languages, it may be easier to see through the facade. Every factual statement depends on context and nuances of language, much of which is subjectively determined. There for there are no facts without a strong subjective component.
This is not to say statements cant be true or false. They can be true or false. We can’t assess this, however, without entering as a “subject” to fill in subjective details. Every objective fact is subject to subjective assessments, and subjective conveyance through language.
The private vs public distinction of our experience of reality is more helpful. Same is true of a quantitative vs qualitative distinction. And a common vs idiosyncratic experience. And an accessible vs inaccessible.
@Philosurfer might have more helpful thoughts on this. But there is a far richer way to understand epistemology than objective vs subjective.
Objective data would be the chemicals in the air in the room which could be measured through mass spectrometry or chromatography. Subjective data would be your judgement of whether it is a good, neutral, or bad smell.
It doesn’t make much sense to claim that an argument is subjective or objective. It makes much more sense to describe an argument in terms of being logical, reasoned, supported, testable, or falsifiable. It is the premises in the argument that are subjective or objective, not the argument itself or the conclusion.
As I understand the philosophical distinctions, yes
I’m not entirely certain what the goal of this conversation is. I’ve most often seen the distinction raised in philosophical discussions about whether there exists statements about reality that are true regardless of who is saying them or whether people acknowledge them. For example, someone who takes a relativistic view of reality may reply to the statement “God is real” with something like “That is true for you, but not for me”. I don’t typically think of the terms in relation to science and am inclined to agree that they’re not terribly helpful distinctions in that context.
Yes, I discussed that point with @swamidass. I do concede that evidence can be both objective and subjective. I might argue instead that facts, depending on how it’s defined, would fit the objective only definition. That may be where my confusion was, but that’s beside the point. You might want to read the discussion we had regarding that particular point.
I’m not sure I would agree with that. If by fact you mean scientifically confirmed observation I think that is only a part of the intended purpose here. There needs to be a general framework for how to determine the degree in which observations, equations, and especially inferences can be said to be demonstrably true independent of any person or group of persons making the claim. I think the latter of the three will be the most problematic in reaching agreement on how to go about it.
Evidence, as has been pointed out, can be subjective or objective. Confirmed evidence, I would argue, is objective. Unconfirmed evidence, I would argue, is subjective. Inferences, i.e., conclusions of arguments, are either confirmed or unconfirmed. Unconfirmed inferences, I would argue, are subjective. Confirmed inferences, I would argue, are objective.
The arguments themselves are ways of reasoning to a conclusion which use premises that can be subjective or objective in nature. If the premise is a statement about something confirmed, I would argue, that it is objective. If not, then it would be subjective.
I think the biggest problem that needs to be addressed is confirmation. When is or isn’t something confirmed. Establishing confirmation can be a thorny issue, especially in regards to inferences. It seems to me empirical and mathematical confirmation is generally more straightforward.
But I think transparency is also a problem. It seems to me what often happens is that someone who is of the opinion that an inference is confirmed will state that inference as such. While someone who doesn’t hold to that same opinion will state that particular inference as an unconfirmed, i.e., subjective, claim.
When neither is aware of the others position is where I suspect a lot of talking past one another goes on. So transparency would be letting the other person know where you stand on certain unconfirmed aspects of the discussion, or assumptions you are making, e.g., whether you are assuming something that still has room for dispute as confirmed or not.
I think those can also be useful distinctions. However, I think it may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater to discard objective and subjective altogether. It seems to me there are some pretty good cases of establishing objectivity in regards to observation and mathematics. Certainly 2+2=4 is objectively confirmed mathematically. And that trees exist is objectively confirmed observationally.
There may be instances where empirical and mathematical confirmation may not be so straightforward, but I think it’s mainly confirming inferences where things are generally more difficult to sort out. But it seems counterproductive to me to completely abandon the objective subjective distinction when there are clearly areas where there isn’t any problem making those distinctions.
I’m not denying that at its roots everything starts out as being subjective. But when the subjective becomes objective is when it can be confirmed to be a reality that exists independently of the subjective. And there just are aspects of reality that are pretty hard to deny are independent of the subjective.
So my concern is, if you completely get rid of the objective subjective distinction it seems to me you end up with even more uncertainty which leads to even more confusion. If reality can’t be grounded in some way with observations that seem to clearly fall into the definition of being objective, then I’m afraid there’s really no way that I can see to adjudicate between generally what scientific indications might be considered as likely candidates for existing reality, or might more likely be just ideas in the mind that don’t really correspond with reality.
Perhaps it is just the way my brain works, but the term “unconfirmed inference” doesn’t make sense to me. Here is a good definition for inference that matches the way I view it:
An inference is a conclusion, so you already have to have premises to reach that conclusion. We can judge the strength of an inference, but all inferences are claimed to be confirmed to one degree or another. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be an inference. If an inference is based on subjective evidence then perhaps it could be called a subjective inference, and it’s weight would be judged on how well people accept that subjective evidence.
If we are talking about confirmed or unconfirmed proposals, then we are talking about hypotheses. These take the form of “If I am right, then you should see X. If I am wrong, then you should see Y”. If we have yet to test a hypothesis, then it is unconfirmed. If a hypothesis passes a test, then it is tentatively confirmed. As you note, the tough part is agreeing on what confirmation looks like.