Objectivity Comes in Degrees

[Age]

How to ascertain some thing Truly 'objectively' is done in only one way, which I am aware of anyway. Therefore, the 'objectivity' of some thing is in relation to this one way.

Saying and/or claiming that 'objectivity' comes in degrees would be like saying and/or claiming that 'truth', itself, comes in degrees. Either some thing is true, or it is not. (Which, by the way, how to ascertain 'Truth' is done in the exact same way as above.) Claiming 'objectivity', itself, comes in degrees, which from a PARTICULAR perspective, there is some 'truth' to it, however, one would HAVE TO CLAIM that 'subjectivity', itself, ALSO, comes in degrees.

And would "veritas aequitas" say and claim that 'subjectivity' comes in degrees?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[phyllo]

Better still - reality i.e. all-there-is comes in degrees.

If you equate 'reality' with what you think is 'out there', then yes.

If you equate 'reality' with 'out there', then no.

[Atla]

Strawman, no one is talking about classical notions of objectivity. You are an idiot.
It is impossible for you to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

You are so desperate you are shooting everywhere without understanding the whole context.

What is termed 'classical' in this case is related to your actual beliefs, i.e.
your view is scientific realism grounded on indirect realism.
You believe science is improving towards what is really real existing absolute mind-independent out there.

Nagel calls that conception the “view from nowhere”, Bernard Williams the “absolute conception” (Williams 1985 [2011]).
It represents the world-as-it-is, unmediated by human minds and other “distortions”.
This absolute conception lies at the basis of Scientific Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#ViewNowh

The SEP article stated there are positives to Scientific Realism [which is the traditional thus classical] but it is very limited.

You should read the following from the SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

Subsection 2.2 and subsection 2.3 will look at two challenges of the idea that even the best Scientific method will yield claims that describe an aperspectival “view from nowhere.”
Section 5.2 will deal with socially motivated criticisms of the “view from nowhere.”
[ibid]

Strawman, no one is talking about classical notions of objectivity. You are an idiot.
It is impossible for you to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman, no one is talking about classical notions of objectivity. You are an idiot.
It is impossible for you to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

You are so desperate you are shooting everywhere without understanding the whole context.

What is termed 'classical' in this case is related to your actual beliefs, i.e.
your view is scientific realism grounded on indirect realism.
You believe science is improving towards what is really real existing absolute mind-independent out there.

Nagel calls that conception the “view from nowhere”, Bernard Williams the “absolute conception” (Williams 1985 [2011]).
It represents the world-as-it-is, unmediated by human minds and other “distortions”.
This absolute conception lies at the basis of Scientific Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#ViewNowh

The SEP article stated there are positives to Scientific Realism [which is the traditional thus classical] but it is very limited.

You should read the following from the SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

Subsection 2.2 and subsection 2.3 will look at two challenges of the idea that even the best Scientific method will yield claims that describe an aperspectival “view from nowhere.”
Section 5.2 will deal with socially motivated criticisms of the “view from nowhere.”
[ibid]

Strawman, no one is talking about classical notions of objectivity. You are an idiot.
It is impossible for you to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

If you have "philosophical balls" then you should explain:

What ChatGpt meant by 'classical' is "as stated by ChatGpt"
and explain
what you are talking about that is not classical notions of objectivity.

I have already stated,
what ChatGpt referred to as "classical notions of objectivity" is the same as your objectivity your 'indirect realism' within scientific realism & philosophical reason

You cannot have philosophical competence via banking on vagueness.

[Atla]

You are so desperate you are shooting everywhere without understanding the whole context.

What is termed 'classical' in this case is related to your actual beliefs, i.e.
your view is scientific realism grounded on indirect realism.
You believe science is improving towards what is really real existing absolute mind-independent out there.



The SEP article stated there are positives to Scientific Realism [which is the traditional thus classical] but it is very limited.

You should read the following from the SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

Strawman, no one is talking about classical notions of objectivity. You are an idiot.
It is impossible for you to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

If you have "philosophical balls" then you should explain:

What ChatGpt meant by 'classical' is "as stated by ChatGpt"
and explain
what you are talking about that is not classical notions of objectivity.

I have already stated,
what ChatGpt referred to as "classical notions of objectivity" is the same as your objectivity your 'indirect realism' within scientific realism & philosophical reason

You cannot have philosophical competence via banking on vagueness.

I explained it many times before. You just can't understand anything so why are you here.

[seeds]

Strawman, no one is talking about classical notions of objectivity. You are an idiot.
It is impossible for you to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

If you have "philosophical balls" then you should explain:

What ChatGpt meant by 'classical' is "as stated by ChatGpt"
and explain
what you are talking about that is not classical notions of objectivity.

I have already stated,
what ChatGpt referred to as "classical notions of objectivity" is the same as your objectivity your 'indirect realism' within scientific realism & philosophical reason

You cannot have philosophical competence via banking on vagueness.

I explained it many times before. You just can't understand anything so why are you here.

He announced to the forum why he is here when he stated the following to flashdp:

I don't give a damn with your 'gnat' views on this.
As usual, I raised threads primarily for my selfish interest, i.e. as a reference for my work.
Any discussion participated is secondary.

_______

[FlashDangerpants]

If you have "philosophical balls" then you should explain:

What ChatGpt meant by 'classical' is "as stated by ChatGpt"
and explain
what you are talking about that is not classical notions of objectivity.

I have already stated,
what ChatGpt referred to as "classical notions of objectivity" is the same as your objectivity your 'indirect realism' within scientific realism & philosophical reason

You cannot have philosophical competence via banking on vagueness.

I explained it many times before. You just can't understand anything so why are you here.

He announced to the forum why he is here when he stated the following to flashdp:

I don't give a damn with your 'gnat' views on this.
As usual, I raised threads primarily for my selfish interest, i.e. as a reference for my work.
Any discussion participated is secondary.

_______

I feel the more exceptional bit is that Gandalf the KKK managed to take the inspiration VA offered and make a racial thing out of it, and nobody was even surprised any more.

Furthermore, not only does 'degree' of Objectivity coincide with IQ, it also coincides with different genetic groups.

Some human societies have different approaches to Objectivity (by Direction) than others--different starting points, different ends.

[Wizard22]

Furthermore, not only does 'degree' of Objectivity coincide with IQ, it also coincides with different genetic groups.

Some human societies have different approaches to Objectivity (by Direction) than others--different starting points, different ends.

Name one Australian Aboriginal Objectivist.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[promethean75]

Many people find it difficult to take pictures of aboriginal objectivists, and this is often attributed to a common myth in western culture. If F.D. Pants isn't able to produce a photo of an aboriginal objectivist it's not because the aboriginal objectivist won't allow his picture to be taken because he believes it will take his spirit away but because the photographer didn't take the lens cap off the camera