What is Objectivity? - Epistemology Video 30

This is video 30 in an introductory course on epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge. In this video, we talk about objectivity. One way of thinking about objectivity is as that which is independent of the subject; this is a way of thinking that we can recognise in the metaphysics of Descartes, Thomas Nagel's View from Nowhere, and the Value-Free Ideal of science. Another way of thinking about objectivity is as that in which as many subjects as possible come together. This is a more recent idea, defended for instance by Helen Longino in her feminist account of how scientific communities ought to work.
Victor Gijsbers teaches philosophy at Leiden University in the Netherlands. You can follow him on mastodon: @[e-mail].
This video is part of a lecture series originally recorded for my students during the 2023/2024 spring semester. The entire playlist is here: • Course in Epistemology

[@jamespierce5355]

"Objective truth doesn't exist." "Is that objectively true?" Works every time.

[@jamespierce5355]

Trying to ground objective truth in human minds will always admit of subjectivity - in response to the story Helen Longino gives us.

[@martinbennett2228]

Thank you for an important lecture. I question whether the two approaches that you discuss are necessarily incompatible. Clearly, however desirable may be the goal of objectivity, we have to recognise that complete objectivity is impossible. We can at the same time recognise how the subjective component is able to subvert objectivity. This recognition is also necessary when taking an inclusive communal approach to objectivity. Peer review may help detect subjective subversion of attempts at objective conclusions. Basically we can as a community be open to critical analysis that identifies subjective artefacts in the laudable attempt to approach the impossible goal of objectivity. At the same time we can recognise that values and viewpoints are also the product of our basic physiology (genetics and neurophysiology) and history of experiences. As such there can be an objective account of subjectivity. That someone is recognised to be happy because they are smiling is not much of an explanation, an objective explanation requires an analysis of the causes for the happiness. Objectivity would be very limiting if it eschewed anything related to the subject, comprehensive objectivity needs to be able to account for the subject. However we may approach objectivity, achieving or knowing that we have achieved objectivity is impossible, but what is the alternative when subjectivity ultimately reduces to solipsism?

[@NoReprensentationWithoutTax]

Hi Mr Gijsberg, What is the relevant literature on this topic ? Thanks for sharing

[@jamespierce5355]

You are absolutely right that science can not exist without values/presuppositions. We believe we *ought* pursue the truth. We presume that that the future will be like the past. And as Hume points out, we can not get derive ought to be by examining what is.

[@martinbennett2228]

Isn't a hypothesis an ought? If A is true B ought to be a consequence. If Einstein's general relativity is correct, it ought to be possible to detect deflection of light from distant stars during an eclipse as the light passes the mass of the sun.

[@jamespierce5355]

@martinbennett2228 Before a hypothesis is even constructed, we are assuming that we ought to pursue the truth (via the scientific method, in this example). Nothing in the natural/material world can demonstrate that we ought puruse truth or that the scientific method is even valuable. The scientific method is not self-justifying. Sure, we can point to science's pragmatic usefulness in describing the natural world, but we have the same problem: the natural world (which is all science can analyze) can't account for oughts.

[@martinbennett2228]

@@jamespierce5355 Science does involve basic tacit beliefs (such as in consistency across the universe) which can be expressed as oughts, but that is not what I am responding to. In effect you are questioning the part of your statement 'what is'. My point is that an ought can follow from an analysis of 'what is'. Although Gödel refers to mathematical and logical systems, I think it very likely that there are always underlying assumptions that are outside any system of reference. Although this implies incompleteness, I do not think it has to imply invalidity.

[@jamespierce5355]

@martinbennett2228 I see. I apologize, when I say "ought" I am referring to a "should" of human behavior, not like a synonym with "then" or "therefore"