Subjective Judgments

[coberst]

Subjective Judgments

What do we mean when we consider one judgment to be subjective while another is objective?

I think that when a person, an agent, makes a judgment about an object we must take into account the stability of the agent and the stability of the object. When the object is another agent the stability is different than when the object is an inanimate thing with an essence that changes only under rare or substantial forces.

The agent has many forces working on her or him when a judgment is made. Depending upon the ability of the agent in dealing with those forces determines to some extent the variability of the agent.

In making a judgment regarding a matter of physics the agent can be considered to be very stable because the physicist is trained to disregard subjective forces plus the paradigm of that particular natural science places tremendous controls on the agent. Also inanimate objects are unlikely to disturb the agent to nearly the degree as does political and social thoughts.

The agent making judgments about political or social thought has tremendous internal forces pulling in an irrational direction plus the object of consideration is almost always one or more agents with tremendous irrational forces at work also. I guess that there are seldom if ever paradigms involved in political and social domains of knowledge.

 

[Kopji]

If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain.
- Richard Feynman

...

 

[I less than three logic]

This have something to do with that ethics = science thread?

 

[l0rca]

What do we mean when we consider one judgment to be subjective while another is objective?

You are an idiot. In the dictionary it states this. Do you ever do any research? Is it too much to ask to even bother learning the definitions of the words you use? Is this forum your personal mental masturbation web site?

And why do you write with so much verbiage? Do you enjoy your ego to that high a degree? Do you know what simple explanations are? But still, no matter how purple you make your prose, the point is always plain and badly thought out.

People like you are the reason this forum is decaying with petty arguments.

*walks off disgusted*

 

[coberst]

This have something to do with that ethics = science thread?

If this thread has a connection with the other it is only coincidental. This thread is about subjective and objective judgments.


The natural sciences deal only with entities that can be measured. For the natural sciences ‘to be is to be measurable’. The natural sciences deal only with objective judgments. Objective judgments are judgments dealing only with entities that can be measured.

Subjective judgments are about all other entities.

 

[Dancing David]

If this thread has a connection with the other it is only coincidental. This thread is about subjective and objective judgments.


The natural sciences deal only with entities that can be measured. For the natural sciences ‘to be is to be measurable’. The natural sciences deal only with objective judgments. Objective judgments are judgments dealing only with entities that can be measured.

Subjective judgments are about all other entities.

This is a common perception, but I would argue that it is funfamentaly flawed. There is a word used called objective but that is just the definition. All human acts are influenced by the social, political and cultural context in which they occur.

The history of science is replete with paradigms that work beeter than others, the concept of the paradigm shift is one in which the standard paradigm is replaced by a 'better' one.

Scientists themselves use subjective judgements when trying to figure out what and how to study, not to even get into the complexities of funding.

The goal of of objectivity as it were is to create a replicable event that is the same for all observers given the same test conditions, and then to eliminate confounding factors. This does not apply to just physics this this applies to all science.

 

[Dancing David]

You are an idiot. In the dictionary it states this. Do you ever do any research? Is it too much to ask to even bother learning the definitions of the words you use? Is this forum your personal mental masturbation web site?

And why do you write with so much verbiage? Do you enjoy your ego to that high a degree? Do you know what simple explanations are? But still, no matter how purple you make your prose, the point is always plain and badly thought out.

People like you are the reason this forum is decaying with petty arguments.

*walks off disgusted*

This sounds a lot like the decline of westerm civilization!

 

[drkitten]

The natural sciences deal only with entities that can be measured.

Another fundamental philosophical misunderstanding from our resident "sophomore."

The natural sciences deal only with entities that can be observed. Qualitative research is a well-regarded aspect of the natural sciences.

The natural sciences deal only with objective judgments.

Again, sophomoric and wrong.

How do you think the efficacy of pain treatments are judged?

You give someone a drug and ask them how they feel. Purely subjective -- but hard-core medical science nevertheless.

 

[coberst]

Dancing David

Does your response mean that you do not consider measurability to be a defining condition for the natural sciences and as to what is considered to be a matter of fact?

 

[coberst]

drkitten

You are so wrong. If you had not already used up the sophomoric charge I would have given that honor to you. Since I am 72 I suspect you might better qualify for that title than I.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten

You are so wrong.

Feel free to explain how the efficacy of pain medications are tested, without resort to "subjective judgements." For that matter, explain how blindsight is studied, and/or how non-caloric sweeteners are identified.

 

[Z]

Coberst, if you're really 72, I suspect the real problem is, you're starting to go senile.

At least that would explain why every thread of yours sounds like the exact same garbage after just a few posts.

 

[coberst]

Coberst, if you're really 72, I suspect the real problem is, you're starting to go senile.

At least that would explain why every thread of yours sounds like the exact same garbage after just a few posts.

Would your mother approve of you talking like that? I suspect it would embarrass her completly.

 

[Z]

Would your mother approve of you talking like that? I suspect it would embarrass her completly.

Nope - she's the one what taught me to talk this way.

"Call a horse a horse, a donkey a donkey, and an ass an ass," she always told me.

 

[fuelair]

No insults (so I won't mention lifegazer except to name him), but as said above, check several dictionaries. If you do not agree with them, contact their research boards/researchers and complain. If you notice that they pretty much agree, consider that the words may not need further clarification/ discussion and attempting same might well be pointless and might be why people are being uncooperative.

 

[LawnOven]

People like you are the reason this forum is decaying with petty arguments.

*walks off disgusted*

As, a relative JREF forum oldtimer, I would just like to point out that, people have been claiming this is happening for a long time. It seems to come in waves.


...Man I miss some of the old crazies, that were here.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David

Does your response mean that you do not consider measurability to be a defining condition for the natural sciences and as to what is considered to be a matter of fact?

Observation, not measure is the nature of science, there is plenty of science that can not be 'measured' in the way that most people abuse the term to distinguish beween 'hard' and 'soft' science. i think that a study of the Eistein and Bohr debates and the general hoohah they bother created by stating theories that did not fir the prevailing mechanistic paradigm express the reason that there is no such thing as hard science. there is only science, observation, reproducible results and predective quality are the hallmarks of science.

There are no matters of fact, there are only observed behaviors of reality, gravity does not exist, it is not a matter of fact, it is a convention of speech and science used to describe the apparent behaviors of objects in the real world. It is a theory that matches the behaviors of the observed world to a fine degree.

 

[Dancing David]

As, a relative JREF forum oldtimer, I would just like to point out that, people have been claiming this is happening for a long time. It seems to come in waves.


...Man I miss some of the old crazies, that were here.

Ah, Jedi Knight and Franco, and the obscure S&S...

 

[Didaktylos]

Would your mother approve of you talking like that? I suspect it would embarrass her completly.

Youth is fleeting - but immaturity lasts forever.