Is it even possible for Humans to be objective?

[Strelok]

I'm interested in peoples opinions on the subject.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

As emotional as I am....Naaaaa never gonna happen. If you want to get the views of those that will not post, you may want to consider a poll....

[Bovril]

Define objective. Definitions matter a lot in philosophy.

Basically the answer I'd give is that people must be basically 'right' in an 'objective' sense about almost all of their beliefs (giving a broad definition of beliefs, including stuff like 'things fall downward, not upward', else they would not be able to function on a day to day basis. So humans have in some sense a functionally objective relationship to things outside of themselves in many instances. However, the definitive answer to this question is clearly impossible to give since no one can get outside of themselves and check whether a given belief is true. That includes philosophers.

Besides, what could it possibly mean for a belief as expressed in language to accurately reflect 'reality'? 'Reality' is not made up of bits of language we can reasemble in our heads. The transition in thought of Witgenstein is reflective of what's happened in philosophy in general with regards to this question. Read his Philosophical Investigations if you are interested.

[Playfishpaste]

From all points of view, this question seems to only have one possible answer, yes.

Objectivity is innately a human concept. It is truly unfathomable for it to be construed by any other means. I would go as far as saying it is unlikely that anybody but humans could be objective in every sense. We're the only things I know of that have fashioned this system of logic and have these specific senses to rely on.

But from what I assume you're implying, the issue is "can we behave like robots and forego our biases and emotions". In some ways, absolutely. Science is a perfect example of this, because it doesn't rely on a system that requires human input to function properly (it just so happens that humans are the ones who do it the most efficiently, machines are catching up extremely quickly though). The water cycle objectively exists and operates on objective rules, no philosophical ifs ands or buts about it.

Now where the situation becomes murky is things like morality, or everyday decision making, like catching a thief.

[Bovril]

But from what I assume you're implying, the issue is "can we behave like robots and forego our biases and emotions". In some ways, absolutely. Science is a perfect example of this, because it doesn't rely on a system that requires human input to function properly (it just so happens that humans are the ones who do it the most efficiently, machines are catching up extremely quickly though). The water cycle objectively exists and operates on objective rules, no philosophical ifs ands or buts about it.

Gosh, I'm not aware of any philosophers that argue that any aspect of science maps directly onto the physical world in any sort of absolute sense that seems to be implied by the term 'objective'. I think you're confusing the ease of gaining concensus amount humans with objectivity, although if we have to use the latter, the former might be a good way of defining it. What I mean is, in the hard sciences it's quite easy most of the time to get broad agreement on a set of findings, techniques, principles or whatever, and whilst these change from time to time, at most points in time they look pretty stable and uncotroversial. It should be stressed that this has not always been the case.
To look at your example of the water system. I think most people would agree that it does in some sense exist regardless of what humans think about it. But that's not a desperately interesting question. The question of how human understanding relates to external objects has some interest, but the question of how humans achieve concensus on truth statements seems to me to be the most facinating one.

[Playfishpaste]

Gosh, I'm not aware of any philosophers that argue that any aspect of science maps directly onto the physical world in any sort of absolute sense that seems to be implied by the term 'objective'.

Objective reality =/= The world without human beings, or the actual physical world, objective reality is the physical world as we perceive it.

Subjective reality is reality that varies between people because of differing perceptions.

I think you're confusing the ease of gaining concensus amount humans with objectivity, although if we have to use the latter, the former might be a good way of defining it.

And that is exactly the definition of objectivity, a perception of the physical world that does not vary between observers. Something that is not observed is not objective, which is why I said earlier that it's likely not possible for anyone but humans to be objective, since only humans (that we know of) have these five senses present in this way.

Reality itself on the other hand, is a much different thing, and goes into metaphysics. It is perfectly arguable that reality itself does not exist, and that objective reality (reality pertaining to observers) is all that exists.

What I mean is, in the hard sciences it's quite easy most of the time to get broad agreement on a set of findings, techniques, principles or whatever, and whilst these change from time to time, at most points in time they look pretty stable and uncotroversial. It should be stressed that this has not always been the case.
To look at your example of the water system. I think most people would agree that it does in some sense exist regardless of what humans think about it. But that's not a desperately interesting question. The question of how human understanding relates to external objects has some interest, but the question of how humans achieve concensus on truth statements seems to me to be the most facinating one.

There is no possible argument you could make for the existence of the water cycle in true reality. The real physical water cycle is in fact something that isn't objective at all, since it has no grounds in objective reality. The real actual clouds themselves aren't objective, they are completely subjective. The way you and the rest of the world perceive them is what is objective.

To me this aspect of metaphysics isn't particularly interesting, and is in fact rather boring, since it is often broad, generalizing, and usually without application. I am much more interested in how things work, rather then whether or not they are actually here or are true.

[Bovril]

Objective reality =/= The world without human beings, or the actual physical world, objective reality is the physical world as we perceive it.

Subjective reality is reality that varies between people because of differing perceptions.

And that is exactly the definition of objectivity, a perception of the physical world that does not vary between observers. Something that is not observed is not objective, which is why I said earlier that it's likely not possible for anyone but humans to be objective, since only humans (that we know of) have these five senses present in this way.

I'm uncomfortable about you definition of objectivity. You say its the world as percieved through the five senses in a way that is invariant amongst observers. But not all the senses are present in all observers, and do not work in the exact same way in any two observers. What's more, once meaning is imputed onto sense data, there's exponentially less common experience. Also, the senses of chimps particularly, but also other old world primates, are pretty similar to those of humans. My sensory world is far more similar to that of a chimp than a blind human. So your idea that subjectivity is defined as that part of perception which varies amongst (human) observers would seem to include all perception, even though differences are often minute.
You also run into the problem that you seem not to allow for the role of the object in objective knowledge, which is a strange approach. Since it is surely the object which mediates sense perception given a non-solopsistic world view, the independent object must play a role in what you call objectivity. Given a solopsistic world view, you definition of objectivity falls apart since there is no way for peceivers to share perceptions. Without positing the role of the independent object in objective perception, then for you objective perception is simply a wild coincidence.

Reality itself on the other hand, is a much different thing, and goes into metaphysics. It is perfectly arguable that reality itself does not exist, and that objective reality (reality pertaining to observers) is all that exists.

I'm not sure this is generally accepted as a potentially usefull supposition though these days. Relationships between things, including the parts of our mind, demand some sort of explanation in terms of relationships of parts, so the idea that there is no such thing as reality outside of our current mental state seems to essentially negate all philosophy and, indeed, human experience. I don't think it is an arguable view. Argument doesn't even make sense if relationships between parts doesn't exist.
A more simple objection is that 'observer' is a concept that demands the concept 'observed'. This is specific to your argument though.

There is no possible argument you could make for the existence of the water cycle in true reality. The real physical water cycle is in fact something that isn't objective at all, since it has no grounds in objective reality. The real actual clouds themselves aren't objective, they are completely subjective. The way you and the rest of the world perceive them is what is objective.

Well, as before, objectivity necessarily posits the reality of the object, otherwise there is nothing to mediate the experience, and this is particularly true in your concensus based version of objectivity.

To me this aspect of metaphysics isn't particularly interesting, and is in fact rather boring, since it is often broad, generalizing, and usually without application. I am much more interested in how things work, rather then whether or not they are actually here or are true.

Well, this I agree with. Like I said a couple of posts back, we can't check our beliefs or perceptions against 'reality', because the only way the can assess our beliefs and perceptions is... through other of our beliefs and perceptions.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I believe that it is impossible to be objective in all things and find the truth. All people alive have beliefs. There are no people who are objective enough to withhold from believing until there is absolute proof for something to be true. If a person did that they would be constantly undecided and finding a basis for the start of any scientific investigation would be impossible so to a point science can be slightly non objective. There are also people who stonewall any demonstrations of proof and will not be told. This is due to people remaining true to themselves thus loosing objectivity.

[Morkonan]

I'm interested in peoples opinions on the subject.

We do not live in a Platonic world. There are no "True" pyramids, spheres, squares or "true objectivity." The best we can do is come up with a concept that closely matches true objectivity while fiddling with the colored glasses we're forced to wear simply by our nature of living within an imperfect Universe.

But, can a human being be "objective" in the fairest sense of the Word? I think so. I think it is possible to suspend certain biases. However, in the strictest sense of the word, even without a Platonic Universe, it isn't possible for a human to be objective - We lack knowledge of "Everything." Even in the imperfect world, true objectivity, by a strict definition accepting some imperfections, would require Omniscience relating to the observed, wouldn't it. Wouldn't failing to consider something because it was unknown falsify a strict definition of "objectivity?"

I think a loosely defined objectivity is all we can really hope to aspire to. Luckily, that's good enough for our purposes.

There are two examples of http://www.learnersdictionary.com/se...ctivity" here. Which do you believe applies to the question most appropriately?

[Ummon]

We do not live in a Platonic world.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is more an issue of knowability in my opinion.

[Dracula]

We do not live in a Platonic world. There are no "True" pyramids, spheres, squares or "true objectivity." The best we can do is come up with a concept that closely matches true objectivity while fiddling with the colored glasses we're forced to wear simply by our nature of living within an imperfect Universe.

The Universe is perfect in almost every sense. In one sphere, if you recognise that 2+2=4 you are objective. If not you fail. Same in the moral sphere, you fail and you are unobjective if you don't recognise certain postulates. The question is are you good enough to see and know them ?

[G-Megas-Doux]

The Universe is perfect in almost every sense. In one sphere, if you recognise that 2+2=4 you are objective. If not you fail. Same in the moral sphere, you fail and you are un-objective if you don't recognise certain postulates. The question is are you good enough to see and know them ?

The universe being a perfect construct does not imply that the inhabitants and perfect. We are very certain that humans are not perfect, we are fallible. If we are fallible then we are ultimately not objective.

The true nature of objectivity is the knowledge of all aspects of relevant data pertaining to the subject of the attempt to be objective. As we cannot know all data we can only be subjective with the information we know. Only if we had knowledge of all data would we be able to attempt objectivity.

Objectivity also requires full control of our scenes, ordering of our thoughts, the correct processing and analysis of our data and a non emotional response to all aspects of the subject. Again this is not possible in fact, but is believed to happen through perception.

Perception is the cornerstone to our beliefs, it is our strength and our weakness, this is why we are always wrong and rarely partially correct.

[Dracula]

The universe being a perfect construct does not imply that the inhabitants and perfect. We are very certain that humans are not perfect, we are fallible. If we are fallible then we are ultimately not objective.

You can't make the last conclusion logically. The falliable are still able of perfection, therefore of objectivity too. Their perception as something good must not hamper them but actually aid to perfection. It should be possible from a moment on.

[G-Megas-Doux]

You can't make the last conclusion logically. The falliable are still able of perfection, therefore of objectivity too. Their perception as something good must not hamper them but actually aid to perfection. It should be possible from a moment on.

That part you quoted relies on the statements that follow it. When ordered correctly the conclussion is correct. To many variables prevents acurate objectivity and conclusion.

[Tankbuster]

Interesting question.
The main problem about being objective is that our theories about reality influence the way we see reality itself, and how we perceive results and interpret experiments. In that sense modern fields of study (like science) have been increasingly forced to admit that true objectivity is most likely impossible.
We are constantly making assumptions about the world, consciously or unconsciously. For example, there used to be a time when people thought that the eye really gave us an accurate representation of reality; they had the unconscious assumption that the speed of light was infinite and that WYSIWYG.
Likewise we currently make many assumptions about causality that are currently being overturned by investigations into the world of the quantum. Perhaps we'll need to add footnotes to the space-time continuum as well, etcetera etcetera.

This is not a bad thing. Progress in terms of human knowledge and in terms of objectivity is largely about becoming aware about these unconscious assumptions and checking to what extent they apply. As well as using these assumptions to increase and accuracy with which we conduct experiments.

So if the question is if we are ever able to truly be objective, the answer is no. But this shouldn't lead to relativism: there are still degrees of objectivity. Just like the recognition that absolute certainty doesn't exist (outside of mathematics) doesn't lead to the idea that there aren't still degrees of certainty.

[Strelok]

This will be difficult to convey.

I don't mean objective as if going beyond your own mind itself. Nor do I exactly mean being able to prove or display something without bias. Numbers, for example, can be settled objectively.

What I am trying to say is easily expressed in politics. When you make a judgement on a matter such as "free market vs restricted market".

[Vizsla]

I suspect that all arguments about the important stuff, like politics and religion, are retrospective justifications for deeply held visceral beliefs. (Even atheism and agnosticism. Sorry.)

If we change our minds about such things it generally takes years because it happens by a process of slow osmosis wholly outside of our conscious awareness.
Of course if you can spin on a penny and go from rabid Marxist to uncompromising Capitalist inside of 5 minutes then you probably haven't thought about either one before that instant.

So no, in this sense, I do not think it is possible to be objective.

That said it adds nothing to the human experience of life to think that all of your thoughts and decisions have already been decided upon before you ever thought of them by some other part of your self, the workings of which you are totally unaware of.

I may be attempting to follow a program lodged in the deepest recesses of my brain that my hunter gatherer ancestors used for optimally efficient foraging. But the knowledge adds nothing to my weekly supermarket shopping trip unless I can use it to find the spuds faster.

So it is best to try not to think about it and get on with the pursuit of Happiness.

[dogukan]

Hmmmm they can and they can not. Being objective, is also having bias in a way. However one can apply a very general looking at every single issue making him/her understandable by everyone.
A person has to alienate himself to any sort of absolute truth and accept that everybody is, how he/she is raised. Therefore their way of looking the issue is also true. After that point, the person should try a middle ground.
And even then you will not be that objective.

So a person ca try hard....I am trying hard, but even by saying that I am having bias.

[Dead Sun]

I was always sure that when i saw four cookies, there were four cookies.

Representative realism stems from the faults of direct realism, and Berkeley's Idealism stems from the faults of Representative realism. The problem with that is the faults of Idealism appear to just lead back to direct realism. When we did it in College, it seemed like a touchy subject, and I dont think we're clever enough to 1)change what is in the external world to what we internally perceive or 2)Create what we perceive.

[Habelo]

A wise man once said: those who have most sympathy of all, will have to get rid of it all.

its a ultimatum you see.