View Single Post
A. Neumaier
#36
May3-11, 04:13 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,941
Quote Quote by Fra View Post
We can still communicate right? So there IS indeed an "effective objectivity".
Others simply call objective what you call ''effectively objective''. There is no need to eliminate the uses for a word and then to substitute a more complex version for the previous usage.
Quote Quote by Fra View Post
But the difference is that in my perspective, this is emergent and evolving. In particular it's a result of negotiating interactions between subjective views.
One can consider objectivity to be dependent on social agreements (and hence subject to potential change), without having to change the terminology. On the other hand, if Aristotle would visit the earth today, I think he would agree with that much of our science is objective while some of what he thought is correct wasn't.

Thus I believe that objectivity doesn't change but only the degree to whioch we come close to objectivity, and how convinced we are of something to be objective. Real objectivity is not a time-dependent thing.
Quote Quote by Fra View Post
I also agree that your notion of objectivity, is indeed more common than mine.
In the interest of easy communication, one should strive to use the most common terminology rather create one's own.