(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Pure Objectivity... possible or impossible?

Sorry, but this post will be unmercifully long, so if you have a short attention span, you may want to skip this one.

Last Thurs., I asked my Logic professor about a certain fascinating property of PL (it either stands for Propositional Logic or Provisional Logic, I can't seem to remember ) that I cannot seem to get my mind around: for any deductively valid argument phrased in PL, there is an infinite number of correct, valid conclusions. This can be verified by constructing logical proofs, which allow you to make any number of disjunctions (using thevirule, called "wedge in") for the conclusion of any valid argument. Here is where my "big picture" question lies. If there are infinitely many correct solutions to any logical argument, how can one be objective in arriving at conclusions, or is it even possible to be objective? The way I see it, no matter which conclusion you arrive at for an argument, that conclusion was one out of an infinite number of other valid conclusions. In addition, no matter how many valid conclusions you find for some argument, you will be no closer to objectivity than you were upon reaching the first conclusion, because there ahead of you stand an infinite number of equally correct conclusions that youdid notchoose to use, meaning that in choosing one out of that infinite number, you are willingly or unwillingly being subjective.

Well, maybe this is an unimportant and/or insignificant observation of logical form, which I would be more than willing to accept. But I figured that it is possible for some weight lie within this idea, so I posted . To be honest with you though, I'm not certain.

My professor's response was basically: I'll get back to you on that one.

He did mention that parameters can be set for arguments which filter out most of the alternate conclusions, similar in my view to bounds set for polar equations when they have an unyielding number of solutions or possible steps. Also, when contextually speaking or using NL, there will almost always be subjectivity in the conclusion of an argument since it deals directly with the relevant premises of that argument.

It's just that within PL, which is used to symbolically represent all possible NL statements through atomic and molecular formulas, (ex. "C" in the formula (-W&C) can represent "Andrew hiked through the Grand Canyon" or "Jessica is a member of the Rebulican Party", it doesn't matter) it seems impossible to arrive at a conclusion for a specified argument without personally wanting to find that conclusion. If this is so, how can we logically arrive at unbiased conclusions? Sure, I have heard about logical efficiency and choosing valid conclusions based upon aesthetic need or simplicity, but still... why say that one conclusion is "better" than another if they are both equally valid?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Pure Objectivity

Loading...

Similar Threads for Pure Objectivity |
---|

Is the object of an experiment a variable? |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**