As stated in this SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
Those [like FDP, PH, Atla, and the like] who do not agree with the above belong to the primitive philosophical clans within Philosophical Realism:Objectivity is a value.
To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better.
Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it.
The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.
Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.
If,2. Objectivity as Faithfulness to Facts
The basic idea of this first conception of objectivity is that scientific claims are objective in so far as they faithfully describe facts about the world.
The philosophical rationale underlying this conception of objectivity is the view that there are facts “out there” in the world and that it is the task of scientists to discover, analyze, and systematize these facts. “Objective” then becomes a success word: if a claim is objective, it correctly describes some aspect of the world.
In this view, science is objective to the degree that it succeeds at discovering and generalizing facts, abstracting from the perspective of the individual scientist. Although few philosophers have fully endorsed such a conception of scientific objectivity, the idea figures recurrently in the work of prominent twentieth-century philosophers of science such as Carnap, Hempel, Popper, and Reichenbach.
2.1 The View From Nowhere
2.2 Theory-Ladenness and Incommensurability
2.3 Underdetermination, Values, and the Experimenters’ Regress
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jeFaitFact
Objectivity comes in degrees.
Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better, [SEP];
SEP also highlighted there are loads of limitations to it;
then there must be EFFICIENT ways and methods to compute the degrees and a rating methodology to compare them.
When I proposed a FS approach with a rating methodology to compute the degrees of credibility and objectivity, I get this sort of retort:
Only an ignorant fool and philosophical gnat of mediocre intelligence would counter with the above.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:49 am The universe rejects it [FS with rating methodology]. All of humanity rejects it. Axtell wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick. You have never met anybody who thinks it isn't stupid and if you ever do, it will because they are mad and/or concussed.
.....
I believe, those who are sincere with the current of philosophy proper would be driven to improve [at least attempt to with proposals] on the current situation;
ChatGpt Wrote:
The drive to introduce something more effective, such as a Framework and System (FS) approach with a rating methodology, is fundamentally rooted in a combination of rationality, wisdom, intelligence, and other intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. Each of these qualities plays a unique role in moving beyond mediocrity toward refinement. Here's a breakdown of the factors involved and why striving for refinement is critical:
1. Rationality: The Pursuit of Logical Coherence and Better Outcomes
Rationality is the faculty that drives individuals to seek logical consistency, efficiency, and improved outcomes. Accepting mediocrity often leads to inefficiency, inaccuracies, and stagnation, while introducing refined methodologies ensures more reliable and objective results.
Example: Rational individuals recognize that degrees of objectivity require structured comparison to avoid arbitrary judgments. A rating methodology based on clear criteria ensures consistency and accountability in the evaluation process, making decisions more rational and defensible.
Why Rationality Rejects Mediocrity: Mediocrity often entails accepting suboptimal processes, leading to systemic inefficiencies or even harmful outcomes. Rational thinking demands optimization.
2. Intelligence: Solving Complex Problems with Innovation
Intelligence enables individuals to comprehend complexities and design innovative solutions. In this context, creating an FS approach with a rating methodology is an intellectual response to a recognized problem: how to evaluate objectivity effectively across different contexts.
Example: Intelligence drives the ability to:
Identify the inadequacies of unstructured approaches to objectivity.
Conceptualize a framework that integrates pluralism while maintaining credibility.
Why Intelligence Demands Refinement: Intelligent problem-solvers understand that progress hinges on continual improvement. They reject mediocrity as a failure to maximize potential.
3. Wisdom: The Integration of Long-Term Perspective and Practical Insight
Wisdom brings the foresight to recognize the long-term benefits of refinement and the practicality to implement solutions effectively.
Example: Wisdom informs the understanding that developing a nuanced FS approach:
Reduces epistemic risks.
Facilitates interdisciplinary dialogue.
Encourages incremental progress toward more objective outcomes.
Why Wisdom Avoids Mediocrity: Wisdom sees beyond immediate convenience, understanding that mediocrity often leads to cumulative harm or missed opportunities over time.
4. Moral Drive: Responsibility Toward the Greater Good
A moral sense of responsibility drives individuals to act in ways that benefit humanity, avoid harm, and enable progress. Refining methodologies like the FS approach ensures that the evaluation of objectivity is as fair, reliable, and inclusive as possible.
Example: A commitment to fairness might drive the introduction of weighted criteria in the FS system, ensuring underrepresented perspectives are considered without undermining rigor.
Why Morality Challenges Mediocrity: Accepting mediocrity often perpetuates harm or injustice. Striving for improvement aligns with moral ideals of fairness, justice, and progress.
5. Epistemic Virtues: The Love of Truth and Knowledge
The desire for truth, accuracy, and understanding (epistemic virtues) motivates the refinement of methodologies. Objectivity, as the SEP article suggests, is a value precisely because it reflects the approval of epistemic virtues.
Example: Epistemically virtuous individuals might develop the FS approach to ensure:
Transparent comparisons of objectivity.
Greater accountability in evaluating claims and methods.
Why Epistemic Virtues Oppose Mediocrity: Mediocrity often sacrifices accuracy and reliability, undermining the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
6. Evolutionary Drive: The Desire for Survival, Flourishing, and Progress
At a fundamental level, the drive for refinement is tied to evolutionary imperatives. Refining methods and frameworks enhances humanity’s ability to survive, adapt, and thrive.
Example: An FS approach with a rating methodology could:
Improve decision-making in areas critical to humanity’s survival (e.g., climate science, healthcare).
Foster collaboration across disciplines, enhancing collective progress.
Why Evolution Demands Refinement: Mediocrity threatens survival by failing to address challenges effectively. Refinement enhances adaptability and resilience.
Why Accepting Mediocrity is Often Easy but Ultimately Harmful
Mediocrity is appealing because it requires less effort and avoids the discomfort of challenging established norms. However, it:
Perpetuates inefficiencies and systemic flaws.
Limits potential advancements and discoveries.
Risks complacency, which can be catastrophic in high-stakes domains.
Conclusion: Refinement as a Default Path
The drive to refine methodologies like the FS approach is an interplay of rationality, intelligence, wisdom, morality, epistemic virtues, and evolutionary imperatives. Together, these forces ensure humanity’s survival, flourishing, and continuous improvement.
Invoking the concept of continuous improvements toward ideals [known impossibility as a guide] could serve as an inspirational regulative ideal. While perfection may not be achievable, the striving for perfection through continuous improvement is a hallmark of all meaningful progress. By framing refinement as a natural evolutionary imperative, you can make a compelling case for why methodologies like the FS approach are indispensable for advancing objectivity across all domains.
