Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.
Granted.
Quote:
If that holds to be true, then I may have said something is blue. This could be perceived as subjective. But if my human definition of blue, was what I perceived of blue, it would be blue, as according to that.
Except you can't know with 100% certainty that it IS blue, maybe you're vision is off. It might look blue to you, but red to someone else. More, the object might not even exist. Maybe it's a hallucination. Because you can't step outside your own perception to confirm your hypothesis, it remains subjective.
Quote:
Since my action was to record said data, and I did, objectively, within my own parameters, I would be, being objective.
It's entirely subjective. Indeed, movement is a terrible example for objectivity, because movement can be viewed relative to anything. To whit, relative to yourself, you stayed in exactly the same spot. The universe moved 10 feet, allowing you to get from one spot to the next.
For the record, any statement founded on a subjective premise is likewise subjective. If you include subjectivity in your parameters, the result you get will always be subjective.
Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.
While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.
Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.
Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.
Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.
I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.
But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.
Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.
Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.
But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.