Philosophy Now Forum

Within Morality, Objectivity is Intersubjectivity as grounded on Intersubjective Agreement.

Scientific Objectivity is intersubjectivity as grounded on Intersubjective Agreement within a human-based Framework and System [FS, FSERC].
Moral Objectivity grounded upon a human based moral FS is parallel to scientific objectivity.

Here are some notes related to Scientific Objectivity is Intersubjectivity grounded 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

Here is another;

Abstract The subjectivity and objectivity of science are strongly associated to the nature of science, which is part of science education curricula worldwide. The issue under research is how an epistemological issue, like objectivity and subjectivity in science, could be introduced in science classes, so as to reflect the most realistic image of science. Following this line in the present study, concepts were related to what students and teachers should know, science education research and policy documents were explored, and current views within the philosophy of science were briefly summarized. We propose a distinction between the partially subjective scientific process and the rather objective end result of scientific inquiry as a schema promoting better understanding in science education. Intersubjectivity and critical transformation are then proposed as concepts which can enhance this schema.
………
4.2. Objectivity as Intersubjective Agreement
A substantial amount of sophisticated views on the objectivity of science rely on the notion of intersubjectivity.
https://file.scirp.org/Html/1-2810076_50254.htm

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

There are loads of papers supporting objectivity is intersubjectivity as grounded on intersubjective agreement.

The opposition to the above is objectivity is absolute as claimed by philosophical realists;
The 'objectivity' that is claimed by PH et. al. [philosophical realist] 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.

PH's Pseudo-Objectivity
viewtopic.php?p=717943#p717943

Discuss??
Views??

Notes:

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, ]
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.

Notes:

OBJECTIVITY AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY IN MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Paul Julian

Chapter 3 articulates and defends Intersubjectivism, which treats moral normativity as essentially intersubjective.
I argue that we create and maintain moral normativity together by participating in relationships of mutual recognition and accountability.
Intersubjectivism casts us as co-authors of morality’s authority, and treats moral normativity as arising from the practical authority we grant one another to make claims within moral relationships.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y

While the above did not mention it, such intersubjectivism thus objectivity of morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSERC which is necessary to enable the co-sharing and intersubjectivity.

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.

Philosophical realist in their ignorance and arrogance are desperate to hijack certain terms for their narrow interests.

For example the term 'realism' which generally reflect not-falsehoods and being realistic.
The term 'realism' had been hijacked by philosophical realist to represent their sense of what is real, i.e. that which exists absolutely independent of the human-conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

However, it has been shown that what is real as claimed by philosophical realist is in fact, ultimately not-realistic false, illusory and nonsensical.

On the other hand it is the non-philosophical realists e.g. Kantians, whose claims are ultimately most realistic as conditioned upon a human-based FSERC.
Since the term 'realism' has been hijack by realists [p-realists] the Kantians and the like has to be labelled as anti-realists which has negative connotations in terms of 'reality'.

The philosophical realists are doing the same with the term "objectivity" to be exclusive to them.
Just as their claim of 'reality' their claim of objectivity is merely pseudo-objectivity.

Since the term 'objectivity' is still not yet fully ingrained with the philosophical realist, there is still room for the anti-realists to push their 'intersubjectivity' as 'objectivity'; in this case, there is no need to give up the term 'objectivity' for 'intersubjectivity' since both terms are interchangeable and can be explained.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:35 am While the above did not mention it, such intersubjectivism thus objectivity of morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSERC which is necessary to enable the co-sharing and intersubjectivity.

Which human-based moral FSERC is the morality you espouse based on? There are a number of intersubjectively supported moralities.

The general principle is;
Reality, truth, knowledge, facts, are all contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS - FSERC] which is thus done on a collective basis which is grounded on intersubjective agreement; as such, it is not dependent of one or an unorganized group of subjects, therefore it is objective as generally understood.
The gold standard of objectivity is that of the scientific FSERC at its best.

Any human-based moral FS or FSERC is objective in varying degrees.
A moral FSERC that has near equivalence will have a high degree of objectivity.

A theistic model morality is also a FSERC-based moral-FS.
Since the theistic FS is way off the other extreme of the gold standard [scientific FS], it has negligible degree of objectivity.

A intuitionist model of moral FSERC would also has a low degree of objectivity because it is based on intuition and not scientific.

One point to note,

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, ]
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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 5:31 am The general principle is;

It's not 'The general priniciple', you are presenting your general principle.

Reality, truth, knowledge, facts, are all contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS - FSERC] which is thus done on a collective basis which is grounded on intersubjective agreement; as such, it is not dependent of one or an unorganized group of subjects, therefore it is objective as generally understood.

Who determines what is an organized group of subjects and what is not? What FSERC is that determination made under?
The Catholic Church was a huge, very organized group of subjects before science really got underway. Does this mean that reality, at that time, was actually as the Catholic Church said, at that time? Did reality start shifting as science got more organized?

The gold standard of objectivity is that of the scientific FSERC at its best.

In which FSERC is this fact conditioned on?

Any human-based moral FS or FSERC is objective in varying degrees.
A moral FSERC that has near equivalence will have a high degree of objectivity.

I don't think 'equivalence' works in this sentence.

A theistic model morality is also a FSERC-based moral-FS.

And thus objective. So, when the theism were more organized than science, they were more objective and had more objective views of the world than those of any protoscientists. Newton, Gallileo and others who had differences with the church were less objective than the church. At that time the heliocentric model was not as objective as the Vatican's geocentric model.

Since the theistic FS is way off the other extreme of the gold standard [scientific FS], it has negligible degree of objectivity.

Now maybe, but not then. In face the solar system and the universe was geocentric then. Because facts are only contingent of the most organized + popular intersubjectivity FSREC. Then the solar system was geocentric because that is what the most organized, popular FSREC believed and found.

Scientists would like disagree with your position on abortion. Educated people with advanced degrees tend to be more liberal, in the US sense of 'liberal', and tend to be pro-abortion rights, approx 69%.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:34 am Within Morality, Objectivity is Intersubjectivity as grounded on Intersubjective Agreement.

Not that you would ever answer and clarify "veritas aequitas", but;

Is it, only, within 'morality, that, supposedly, 'Objectivity', (capital 'o') is intersubjectivity? . Or, are there other 'topics/subjects' that 'Objectivity' is, supposedly, 'intersubjectivity' as well?

And, if it is only within 'morality', then why, exactly?

Also, obviously, if 'intersubjectivity' is 'Objectivity' (with a capital 'o'), then what 'this' would be 'grounded' on 'intersubjective agreement'.

It would, obviously, be an oxymoron and/or completely contradictory if 'Objectivity/objectivity' being 'intersubjectivity' were grounded up 'disagreement' or 'intersubjective agreement'.

Or, do you think or believe otherwise, (which, again, you will here prove me absolutely and irrefutably True, once more, that you will never answer and clarify these for me).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:34 am Scientific Objectivity is intersubjectivity as grounded on Intersubjective Agreement within a human-based Framework and System [FS, FSERC].
Moral Objectivity grounded upon a human based moral FS is parallel to scientific objectivity.

Here are some notes related to Scientific Objectivity is Intersubjectivity grounded 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

Here is another;

Abstract The subjectivity and objectivity of science are strongly associated to the nature of science, which is part of science education curricula worldwide. The issue under research is how an epistemological issue, like objectivity and subjectivity in science, could be introduced in science classes, so as to reflect the most realistic image of science. Following this line in the present study, concepts were related to what students and teachers should know, science education research and policy documents were explored, and current views within the philosophy of science were briefly summarized. We propose a distinction between the partially subjective scientific process and the rather objective end result of scientific inquiry as a schema promoting better understanding in science education. Intersubjectivity and critical transformation are then proposed as concepts which can enhance this schema.
………
4.2. Objectivity as Intersubjective Agreement
A substantial amount of sophisticated views on the objectivity of science rely on the notion of intersubjectivity.
https://file.scirp.org/Html/1-2810076_50254.htm

There are loads of papers supporting objectivity is intersubjectivity as grounded on intersubjective agreement.

The opposition to the above is objectivity is absolute as claimed by philosophical realists;
The 'objectivity' that is claimed by PH et. al. [philosophical realist] 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.

PH's Pseudo-Objectivity
viewtopic.php?p=717943#p717943

Discuss??
Views??

My generic principle is:
Reality, truth, knowledge, facts, are all contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS - FSERC] which is thus done on a collective basis which is grounded on intersubjective agreement; as such, it is not dependent of one or an unorganized group of subjects, therefore it is objective as generally understood.

An unorganized group of subjects is like a mob [gathering] of people without any sort of shared constitution [beliefs] among themselves.
An organized groups of people are those has at least some sort of shared constitution, e.g. the Catholic Church or a football team, scientists, philosophical realists, antirealists, and the likes.

Re Reality conditioned upon a FSERC is relative and never absolute in the antirealists [Kantian] point of view.
To insist there is an absolute human/mind independent reality is chasing an illusion.

If say, 200,000 years ago there is some sort of tribalX-FSERC which is accepted by 95% of the tribe, then it is relatively the most objective. If the objectivity of tribalX-FSERC is the standard it can be indexed by the respective tribe [not others] at 100/100 and other FSERC can be compared to it relatively.

The fact is humanity was and is evolving with greater and greater sense of critical thinking and rationality plus wisdom.

By the time of the emergence of the Catholic Church, it would have developed its own degree of reality and objectivity but only relative to its believers who can set their standard at 100/100 relative to their state of rationality and critical thinking.

With the appearance of scientists like Newton and those [with their FSERC] who oppose the ideas of the Catholic Church, according to the believers, the reality of the Catholic Church would still be more realistic.

However, in time as there are more who agree with scientific reality, there would be greater objections and opposition of the reality as claimed by the catholic church.

However, the fact is humanity was and is evolving with greater and greater sense of critical thinking and rationality plus wisdom; so this will prevail with time.

At present, the Catholic church had already given up on their reality claim and concede heliocentrism, evolution and other scientific facts are true.

This does not mean the scientific reality based on the scientific FSERC is absolute and final. At present there is still the contentions between scientific realism and scientific antirealism and the issues raised within the Philosophy of Science.
So what is human-based FSERC reality will change in time.

The philosophical realists' claim that there is a final reality which science is approximating towards is based on an illusion.

The determining factors of what is reality [relative] are rationality, critical thinking and wisdom within a human-based FSERC;

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation.[1]
The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind;[2] thus, a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.[3]
Philosopher Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits.[4]
Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.

Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence.

Wisdom, sapience, or sagacity is the ability to contemplate and act productively using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.[1] Wisdom is associated with attributes such as unbiased judgment, compassion, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence, and non-attachment,[2] and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:05 am My generic principle is:

Why do you feel the need to state your generic principle for the 1000th time? Do you think that others are handicapped and didn't get it the first 999 times?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:05 am My generic principle is:
Reality, truth, knowledge, facts, are all contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS - FSERC] which is thus done on a collective basis which is grounded on intersubjective agreement; as such, it is not dependent of one or an unorganized group of subjects, therefore it is objective as generally understood.

An unorganized group of subjects is like a mob [gathering] of people without any sort of shared constitution [beliefs] among themselves.
An organized groups of people are those has at least some sort of shared constitution, e.g. the Catholic Church or a football team, scientists, philosophical realists, antirealists, and the likes.

What is the relevance of this "oraganized" grouping supposed to be? You are piling up an extra layer of subjectivity in hopes of passing off as objective.

You still have your continual ongoing basic logical error in effect here. You have to move from a relationship of "all contingent upon" to one of "solely contingent upon" before you are able to cosnstruct fact out of shared opinions. Just organising the shararers of the opinion into a formal club makes no difference.

It is commonly understood, scientific facts, truth, reality, knowledge are objective.
What is objective is it is independent of one subject's [or a loose groups of subjects] opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That the theory of relativity is true & objective is not because Einstein [the individual] said so, but rather it is the collective science-physics community [specific group of peers] within a framework and system [FS of scientific methods, etc.] said so.

It is same with all other human-based FS_s [legal, history, chemistry, finance, economics, linguistic, etc.] with varying degrees of objectivity relative to the scientific FS as the gold standard.

Whilst it common to state X is Y, p or not-p, it is implied in essence they are conditioned upon its specific human-based framework and System [FS, FSERC].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:30 am It is commonly understood, scientific facts, truth, reality, knowledge are objective.

That's a word salad. You say such a thing is commonly understood?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:30 am It is commonly understood, scientific facts, truth, reality, knowledge are objective.

That's a word salad. You say such a thing is commonly understood?

Stupidity and ignorance as usual.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors.