PH's Pseudo-Objectivity

[FlashDangerpants]

When Popper described objectivity as a synonym for intersubjective agreement he was describing the basis of empirical sciences. The intersubjective agreement relates to properties of objects and he is saying that an agreed method of recognising and quantifying those is all that is needed to meet the requirements for objectivity.

VA has committed a logical fallacy by supposing that if an agreement is sufficient to assert objectivity about properties of objects, then agreement is all that is required to asset objectivity at all.

The minimal necessary and sufficient conditions for objectivity in the matters of science under that Popperian pragmatic model would be properties that are observable as part of an object or phenomenon, and an agreement about how to proceed with observation and measurement. In thismatter he stands apart from some more severe sorts who would insist on observable properties and correct observations of same.

VA is cooking up some fake alternative where the only requirement is the agreement itself, and fairy tales can be elevated to scientific facts by just getting people to assent to it.

[Atla]

The 'objectivity' that is claimed by PH et. al. on the basis that facts and reality are objective in the sense they are absolutely independent of the human condition [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is literally nonsensical.


It is a common claim that 'objectivity' in one sense is intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective agreement.
Here is one paper [intro only] which explains why objectivity in the pragmatic sense is intersubjectivity based on intersubjective agreement.

OBJECTIVITY AS "INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENT"
Eugene Freeman
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27902304

In the writings of both C. S. Peirce and Sir Karl Popper, we can find "Objectivity" defined in the pragmatic sense as being in essence "intersubjective agreement."

The present paper is focussed on the general relationship between the conception of Objectivity in the above pragmatic sense, and the conception of Objectivity in the classical realistic sense of "non-subjectivity," or brute otherness, as expressed by Peirce in its purest form in his category of secondness.

Popper's interpretation of Objectivity is consistently pragmatic.
He holds that a claim to Objectivity is established sufficiently for the needs of empirical science when it is grounded in intersubjective agreement, without making any claim that the subjectivity of intersubjective agreement has been transmuted into or replaced by Objectivity in the classical realistic sense.
For Peirce, however, Objectivity is used both in its realistic sense, which for Peirce is its basic sense, and also inconsistently in its pragmatic sense of intersubjective agreement.
For Peirce these two senses apparently do not conflict—he explains Objectivity as being intersubjective agreement, but he treats it as though the subjectivity in intersubjective agreement had been transmuted into classical or realistic Objectivity by the fad of the agreement.

The present enquiry into the notion of Objectivity as intersubjective agreement is concerned with the question "What is the agreement in Peirce and Popper's `intersubjective agreement' an agreement about?"

Peirce's writings seem to suggest that the separate reports of separate individual investigators are purified of their subjectivity and are transmuted into a pooled set of objective reports through the fact that they are interconsistent.
Popper's more guarded and more consistent usage of the term "Objectivity" as simply a synonym for "intersubjective agreement" seems to suggest that on his view what

The current contention from PH et. al. is there are no objective moral facts because facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
I have argued it is impossible for real objective moral facts that exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions. They are illusory.
This PH et. al. claims of objectivity on this basis is pseudo-objectivity.

What is objectivity-proper [independent of any individual opinions & belief] is grounded on intersubjective agreement within a human-based framework and system [FS or FSERC].
Therefore objectivity-proper cannot be equated with something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Irrelevant. If Freeman is correct that Peirce and Popper meant intersubjectivity by objectivity, then Peirce and Popper were simply not talking about what scientific objectivity generally means today.

Maybe you want to do away with 'objectivity' because you are scared to death by it, exactly because you know deep down that realism vs antirealism is just a choice we make. No matter what you do, you can't refute realism. So you pretend that realism doesn't even exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why do I refer to philosophical realists when I do not agree with their ideology?

Most of the references I have provided in support of 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity' are from philosophical realists. [e.g. Popper (science), Boyd, McCord, Landau, Brink, Railton, Sturgeon (moral realism) ]
I oppose and is against the philosophical realists' ideology of absolute mind-independence.
So, how does my bringing in philosophical realists views of 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity' support my views of 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity'?

On the philosophical realists' claim 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity' we need to deal with following principles independently;

1. Philosophical realism, i.e. reality & things is absolutely mind independent
2. Objectivity is intersubjectivity based on intersubjective agreement.

For the philosophical realist who agree with 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' is directed at a thing that is absolutely mind independent.

But for the philosophical antirealist who agree with 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' is directed at a thing that is NOT absolutely mind independent.

So the difference is only 'which thing' but both share the same principle, i.e. objectivity is intersubjectivity.

It is same in the case of;
For the scientific-realist who agree with 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' is directed at a thing that is absolutely mind independent.

But for the scientific antirealist who agree with, 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' is directed at a thing that is NOT absolutely mind independent.

The point is,
there are philosophical realists and philosophical antirealists who believe 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' i.e. based on intersubjective agreement.
On this basis scientific objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. based on intersubjective agreement within a human-based scientific framework and system.

The philosophical realists I refer to e.g. Boyd, Landau, Brink, Railton argued morality can be approached like the scientific approach to support moral realism [objectivity].
Since science is objective based on intersubjectivity and intersubjective agreement,
morality [moral realism based on naturalism] that is based on science is also objective.
Morality supported by science is objective.
Therefore Morality is objective.

Whilst the philosophical realist who agree with 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' is directed at a thing [reality, object] that is absolutely mind independent,
that absolutely independent thing which is illusory is irrelevant,
what is relevant is the point that 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' i.e. intersubjective agreement.

The philosophical realist [those who agree with 'objectivity is intersubjectivity] make the wrong assumption that there an absolute mind-independent moral fact, but they are in fact dealing with moral facts that are mind-related as conditioned within a human-based FSERC which is inherent within human nature.

It is same with the theistic moral realists [also are philosophical realists] who make the wrong assumption that moral facts are from a God, but they are actually on the right tract in dealing with moral facts that are inherent within themselves and human nature.

[Atla]

It has to come from God, only entity that VA listens to.

In essence, Popper's view on the intersubjective nature of scientific objectivity emphasizes that objectivity is achieved not through the isolated work of individuals but through the collaborative and critical processes of the scientific community as a whole. This collective scrutiny ensures that scientific knowledge is robust, reliable, and, to the greatest extent possible, free from individual biases.

Did Popper also subscribe to the philosophical anti-realist idea that objectivity is ontologically intersubjectivity, or is that not what he was talking about?

Conclusion
Popper’s view on scientific objectivity and intersubjectivity was that:

Intersubjective processes are crucial for achieving objectivity in science.
Objectivity involves how well our theories approximate the truth about an independent reality.
Popper’s realism underpins his belief in an objective world that science seeks to describe, going beyond mere intersubjective agreement.
Thus, while he valued the role of intersubjectivity in scientific practice, he did not equate objectivity with ontological intersubjectivity as some anti-realists do. Instead, he saw intersubjective processes as vital for progressing towards an ever more accurate understanding of an objective reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have explained above:

Why do I refer to philosophical realists when I do not agree with their ideology [ontology]?

Most of the references I have provided in support of 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity' so far, are from philosophical realists. [e.g. Popper (science), Boyd, McCord, Landau, Brink, Railton, Sturgeon (moral realism) ]
I oppose and is against the philosophical realists' ideology [ontology] of absolute mind-independence.
So, how does my bringing in philosophical realists views of 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity' support my views of 'objectivity is Intersubjectivity'?
viewtopic.php?p=718133#p718133

[Atla]

In philosophy, treating objectivity and intersubjectivity as synonyms is generally considered a mistake. They are related but distinct concepts, each with its own philosophical implications and applications.
...
In conclusion, while objectivity and intersubjectivity can intersect, treating them as synonymous overlooks their distinct philosophical roles. Objectivity seeks a perspective-independent truth, whereas intersubjectivity focuses on the shared human experience and collective agreement. Recognizing this distinction enriches our understanding of how knowledge is formed and validated in various contexts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In philosophy, treating objectivity and intersubjectivity as synonyms is generally considered a mistake. They are related but distinct concepts, each with its own philosophical implications and applications.
...
In conclusion, while objectivity and intersubjectivity can intersect, treating them as synonymous overlooks their distinct philosophical roles. Objectivity seeks a perspective-independent truth, whereas intersubjectivity focuses on the shared human experience and collective agreement. Recognizing this distinction enriches our understanding of how knowledge is formed and validated in various contexts.

As usual the presenter of the above has low intelligence, narrow, shallow, and bias thinking.
He think his God is omniscient but that is only based on his foolish thinking.

Here is the nuanced thinking to the above.

My interlocutor presented the following from ChatGpt..
re the above from 'God'.
I question there nuances to be considered.

Your claim is reasonable and touches on an important philosophical discussion.
Here’s a more detailed examination of how objectivity and intersubjectivity are related from the scientific antirealist perspective:

Objectivity and Intersubjectivity: A Deeper Dive

Objectivity:

Traditional View: Objectivity is often seen as the pursuit of knowledge that is independent of any particular observer's beliefs, feelings, or biases. It aims for a perspective that is neutral and detached.
Scientific Antirealist View: For scientific antirealists, objectivity is not about discovering an observer-independent truth. Instead, it is about achieving a consensus among a community of scientists. Scientific truths are seen as constructs that are contingent upon the methods and agreements of this community.

Intersubjectivity:

General View: Intersubjectivity refers to shared understanding and agreement among multiple subjects. It emphasizes the collective aspect of human experience and knowledge.
In Scientific Practice: In the context of science, intersubjectivity means that scientific claims are validated through peer review, replication of results, and general acceptance by the scientific community. This process is inherently social and collective.
Interrelation in Scientific Antirealism
From the scientific antirealist perspective, the process of achieving objectivity in science is deeply intersubjective. Here’s how they relate:

Consensus Formation: Scientific objectivity is achieved through the intersubjective processes of verification, peer review, and consensus-building. What counts as a scientific fact is determined by the collective agreement of scientists.
Methodological Frameworks: The scientific methods themselves are products of intersubjective agreements. They are conventions developed and accepted by the scientific community to ensure consistent and reliable results.
Contingency: Scientific truths are contingent upon the framework within which they are developed. This framework is established and maintained through intersubjective processes. Changes in the scientific paradigm (à la Thomas Kuhn) illustrate how shifts in collective agreements can redefine what is considered objective truth.

Conclusion
Thus, from the scientific antirealist point of view, objectivity is not entirely independent of intersubjectivity but rather deeply interconnected with it. The pursuit of objectivity in science is a collective endeavor that relies on the intersubjective validation and agreement of the scientific community. Recognizing this relationship highlights the social and contingent nature of scientific knowledge, challenging the traditional view of objectivity as purely perspective-independent.

This nuanced understanding aligns with your claim and shows how scientific antirealism bridges the concepts of objectivity and intersubjectivity.

btw, I have countered every shit where he tried to corner me, but failed at all times when I discuss with chatgpt from a wider perspective.

[Atla]

Here’s a more detailed examination of how objectivity and intersubjectivity are related from the scientific antirealist perspective:

btw, I have countered every shit where he tried to corner me, but failed at all times when I discuss with chatgpt from a wider perspective.

Notice how every time VA claims to counter from a 'wider perspective' by switching to a specific narrower perspective.

[Iwannaplato]

btw, I have countered every shit where he tried to corner me, but failed at all times when I discuss with chatgpt from a wider perspective.

Notice how every time VA claims to counter from a 'wider perspective' by switching to a specific narrower perspective.

That sentence of his is conceding his failure.

[Iwannaplato]

Why the term "Objectivity" is critical for antirealists

• Objectivity = the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bjectivity

The use of the term 'objectivity' by itself in its present usage represent a certain degree of intellectual integrity, it is necessary to use this term in its proper philosophical perspective.
The term intersubjectivism by itself do not reflect a sense of intellectual integrity, unbiasness and honesty.

It is you who have repeatedly said that objectivity was intersubjectivity. Were you incorrect when you said this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why the term "Objectivity" is critical for antirealists

• Objectivity = the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bjectivity

The use of the term 'objectivity' by itself in its present usage represent a certain degree of intellectual integrity, it is necessary to use this term in its proper philosophical perspective.
The term intersubjectivism by itself do not reflect a sense of intellectual integrity, unbiasness and honesty.

There is no issue with stating 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' to get the point across that a collective-of-subjects is involved.

The term "intersubjectivism" by itself without further reference to objectivity and explanations can be misleading for some due to the term "subject" therein. General most cannot relate subjects to objectivity.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no issue with stating 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' to get the point across that a collective-of-subjects is involved.

Right, and since 'object' implies realism, as does the whole subject/object dualism.

The term "intersubjectivism" by itself without further reference to objectivity and explanations can be misleading for some due to the term "subject" therein. General most cannot relate subjects to objectivity.

And they will be confused by objectivity since this doesn't just imply that it's not one subjective perspective but that it is no longer based on subjective perspectives at all.

If the goal is to not mislead some people, getting rid of 'objectivity' should be first on the list.

You could use terms without such obvious realist baggage, such as 'Verified'.

[Iwannaplato]

Why the term "Objectivity" is critical for antirealists

• Objectivity = the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bjectivity

The use of the term 'objectivity' by itself in its present usage represent a certain degree of intellectual integrity, it is necessary to use this term in its proper philosophical perspective.
The term intersubjectivism by itself do not reflect a sense of intellectual integrity, unbiasness and honesty.

There is no issue with stating 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' to get the point across that a collective-of-subjects is involved.

The term "intersubjectivism" by itself without further reference to objectivity and explanations can be misleading for some due to the term "subject" therein. General most cannot relate subjects to objectivity.

And there's a reason for that, not just that they are realists, but that the word objectivity itself implies the removal of subjectivity. Not that a bunch of subjects got together.¨

We have biases in common, human beings that is. Objectivity implies that these are removed. That we have gotten beyond our specific primate senses and biases and tendencies and what is inherent in embodied knowledge.

Once you use objective as the label for a conclusion than it is of the world of objects. Biases and tendencies, even those we share because of our common biology, are implicitly claimed to have been avoided. And that's BS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term 'objectivity' in philosophy is a loose term and has contributed to the many contentious debates and misinterpretations.

I believe the later introduction of the term 'intersubjectivity' as equivalent to 'objectivity' is a sign of progress to make the term 'objectivity' more clearer without replacing the term objectivity.
This is a very common thing within philosophy where jargons, equivalent terms and new terms are being 'coined' all the time.

Contemporarily, intersubjectivity is the major topic in both the analytic and the continental traditions of philosophy.
Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubj ... Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

Objectivity = Intersubjectivity
viewtopic.php?t=42502