Objectivity
See: Objective, Scientific Objectivity.
References
2017
- (Reiss & Sprenger, 2017) ⇒ Julian Reiss, and Jan Sprenger (2017). "Scientific Objectivity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
- QUOTE: Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it. Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods and results can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better. Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it. 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.
Given the centrality of the concept for science and everyday life, it is not surprising that attempts to find ready characterizations are bound to fail. For one thing, there are two fundamentally different ways to understand the term: product objectivity and process objectivity. According to the first understanding, science is objective in that, or to the extent that, its products — theories, laws, experimental results and observations — constitute accurate representations of the external world. The products of science are not tainted by human desires, goals, capabilities or experience. According to the second understanding, science is objective in that, or to the extent that, the processes and methods that characterize it neither depend on contingent social and ethical values, nor on the individual bias of a scientist. Especially this second understanding is itself multi-faceted; it contains, inter alia, explications in terms of measurement procedures, individual reasoning processes, or the social and institutional dimension of science. The semantic richness of scientific objectivity is also reflected in the multitude of categorizations and subdivisions of the concept (e.g., Megill 1994 [1]; Douglas 2004 [2]).
- QUOTE: Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it. Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods and results can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better. Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it. 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.
2009
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
- Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created.
- ↑ Megill, A., 1994, “Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity”, in Rethinking Objectivity, A. Megill (ed.), Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1–20.
- ↑ Douglas, Heather. "The irreducible complexity of objectivity". Synthese 138.3 (2004): 453-473. 10.1023/B:SYNT.0000016451.18182.91