Please explain the concept of "OBJECTIVITY", I don't get it.?

Favorite Answer

I think you put your finger on an important issue. The notion of something's being objective is, roughly, that it's what actually 'out there' in reality, as opposed to something's being subjective, which is dependent on our experience of it. Hence, we say a rock's mass is objective, because the rock actually has it independent of anyone's experience of it, whereas the taste of broccoli is subjective, being dependent on the individuals experience of it.

The problem is, of course, that we cannot get 'outside' our own experience to check. But this is not necessarily fatal to the concept of objectivity. One thing we can do is use intersubjectivity as a guide. If everyone always agrees about something, has the same experience, then that's an indication that the phenomena might be objective. Further, as we organize and systematize our experience in the process known as science, we develop hypotheses concerning what the world is and what we are and how the two interact to form experience. And this allows us to formulate testable theories about what is objective and what is subjective....Show more

Objectivity Concept Definition...Show more

To me, being objective means looking at something without prior knowledge or prejudice, unconcerned with other people's opinions or ideas, no outside interference, simply looking at the raw facts.

Math seems like it could ONLY be observed objectively since there are no TWO ways to understand math. You either work the steps and arrive at the answer or you don't. You wouldn't say that 2+2=5 due to outside influences upon the numbers. 2+2=4 ... objectively, subjectively. It will always be the same, no matter what.

Oftentimes, people tell me that I think too much. Sometimes it's better to take things for face value and not read a bunch of "non-existent" factors into it. Perhaps, you are thinking a bit TOO MUCH on this subject and need to analyze your question objectively and realize that there are no hidden agendas or covert circumstances creeping beneath the reality of it all. IMHO.

Simplify!

I AM
Dartagnon...Show more

Being objective means that you don't involve yourself in your answer.

You answer independently of your personal thoughts, impressions and/or feelings in order to use logic and only logic. The idea behind it is to avoid yourself to affect the results.

I would say the goal of a question is to find an answer, but, if you are subjective, what you are really doing is that you try to prove yourself to be right. Defending your ideas is correct as long as you can admit your defeat when it has been showed that your answer is wrong.


Subjectivity tend to defend itself, objectivity tend to defend truth.
The second has the goal of knowing and the first makes you look like you are knowing.


A great example of subjectivity:
"Everyone has different minds. All opinions are equal."

How is it subjective? What does it tend to show? It reduces the impact of any further argumentation and therefore makes the speaker's version look stronger. Ask yourself if this is any logical or looks like it is? Do they showed any link behind what you think and how the things are? No.

What really happened is that they claimed that truth was the one you believed. Think of what it implies. It implies things exists differently from person to person because these people think differently... But yet, they call them just the same.

Is it logical? No. But it does tend to influence your judgement. So, it's subjective.


An other example. One of my favourite!

"Millions support my conception and, on your side, only a few thinks the same."

Giving importance to numbers is a sophism, but I wanted to point out the stylistic. Millions/few... You could as well see the word "only" and compare the weight of "support" versus "thinks".

It just give the impression it is fairly logical, but it only takes advantage of the language to give the speaker an edge. But, does it makes his answer better? It doesn't show anything, just that either millions are dumb or understood well....Show more

Your language is above my pay grade, however, truth is not a property of knowledge, but rather, knowledge is a subset of truth. Something must be true (must exist) before it can be known. Truth must exist in order for it to be known. Knowing does not precede truth.

It is hard for me to understand why you have trouble with independent truths. Physics is "discovered" because physics existed before mankind. For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics was in full force and effect, it "existed" before humans became aware of its existence. Therefore entropy is an objective truth regardless of whether humans know about it, understand it or agree with it.

Gravity is a demonstratable fact, even though we don't yet understand what causes it. The phenomenon is measurable, its workings can be proven with math, Einstein showed how it is synonymous with acceleration, and it clearly exists as an objective Truth, yet science has yet to figure out just what that Truth is.

2 things plus 2 things has always and will always add up to 4 things whether humans process this fact through their minds or not. It is a truth which is objective to any point of view we may have about it.

If I may be so bold, I think you are making your brain work too hard. Without using a single symbol (such as words) to represent any of these concepts, you can "see" the truth of things. If you remove value-judgement you can see them objectively, for what they really are. And you don't have to name them, they will exist anyway....Show more