Is it possible for a person to be totally objective, or do our past experiences and encounters influence/taint everything that comes after them? In other words, is it possible to disconnect yourself totally from your opinions, prejudices, ect, anything that might influence your choice or response to some stimulus, and deliver a completely logical and impartial judgement?
Mods:I’m really not sure if this belongs in GD, so you may move it if you wish.
How would you be able to tell?
It’s absolutely impossible. How do you make a fair judgement without having a personally established idea of what’s fair? As for deciding if something does or does not abide fully by a law or rule, that’s very possible and many people can do it.
This belongs in Great Debates.
Here is my best short answer:
If there is a process by which a ‘completely logical and impartial judgement’ can be obtained, and this process is clearly defined for the required judgement, then a person can certainly totally objectively follow the process and obtain the required judgement. Some people may even be able to create such processes as they are needed, and follow them as they are created.
However, the difficult part is that there is no objective definition for ‘completely logical and impartial.’ In any complex situation there is always a way to claim that any process is not completely logical and impartial. People may come to a concensus that the process is logical and impartial, but that doesn’t make it objectively so.
So the answer is that it is possible to objectively adhere to a process, but that the creation of the process itself is never strictly objective. The best you can hope for when creating a process is that it is generally thought to be fair. Some people have a knack for this, and they are said to be fair, and sometimes even (wrongly) objective.
My totally objective opinion is that this is not a General Question, but a Great Debate.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator
Why would any human being desire to do such a thing? I don’t see how I can make logical judgements on a daily basis without relying on my experience.
Marc
First, I don’t feel you offer a fair definition of ‘objective’; at least, that’s not how I often encounter the word. Second, I don’t feel that opinions necessarily “taint” reports on the state of things. As far as influencing a response: the question which asks for the response does that, so of course it isn’t possible.
It it possible to discuss things as I find them? Yes. Is it possible for you to do that? Yes. If we agree, have our individual reports become more or less objective? Stayed the same?
Perfect objectivity would mean that no information used in the judgement of the issue would be derived from opinion, e.g. no empirical evidence. You’d have to base everything on absolute truths. Since our knowledge is composed entirely of empirical knowledge, or knowledge gained from experience, it is impossible to be perfectly objective about anything.
However, I think that it’s relatively possible to make a judgement by choosing the most reliable and affirmed empirical data at our disposal, and should we do this, the judgement could be considered quite objective. This is what scientists do in the lab, and what I try to do in my life whenever panic sets in. An untainted opinion based on the most reliable data I have, forgetting the result I want or any emotional input which might bais the decision, is wholly within the realm of possibility. So, if you loosen the definition of objectivity to just below the absolute to where you can say ‘I am walking down the street’ rather than ‘I believe that I may be walking down the street, as that is what my senses are telling me’ then you can be objective.
My observations from history
An interesting thing about studying history is that: as the distance between a studied event and the present increases, so does objectivity.
If you read two history books on the same topic, you will never get the same analysis, even though each scholar honestly does his/her best to be objective.
So based on subjective experience, Id have to say no.
The only way we can ‘know’ anything about the world is via our senses, and as these are delivered and processed through our ‘subject’, it is therefore impossible, just by definintion alone, that a human being can be totally objective. ALL of our judgements/decisions etc are ‘tainted’, regardless of our best efforts to remain pure.
To be totally objective would entail meeting each experience as a novel one, something never before encountered and about which absolutely nothing was known. Sort of like permanent and catastrophic amnesia…
However, that does NOT mean that we should not strive towards objectivity, if that means knocking off a few prejudices and sacred cows along the way.
And remember that there’s a difference between being able to perfectly perceive an objective universe, and the lack of existence of an objective universe.
If that is what “objective” means, it is a silly word and should never be used.
For all that, I do not think that objective means “not tainted by our senses” whatever the hell “tained” means there, too.
If I do an experiment that shows me that water freezes at 32°F, is that a subjective experiment? If you repeat it, have we repeated a subjective experiment? If our results agree, is it more or less subjective?
If we define “objective” as that which is impossible, then no, it isn’t possible to be objective. Case closed.
I will point out another flaw. We all define our interests in terms of what we want. Yet, aside from a few basic and variable needs, we all have different goals and interests. Even if one attained complete and total objectivity, one could not make a rational choice because one would no longer have any interests. There is, after all, nothing particularly special or logically good about doing any one thing, nor eating, nor even breathing. We simply do these things because our bodies tell us so. But total objectivity requires that we shunt out all physical influences, etc.
In short, humans aren’t built to make totally objective decisions. We are built to survive and try to find some stability.
“Objective” is not a synonym for “logical”.
I can objectively say that I am upset that anyone would think so. Did my feelings influence that expression? Was it a subjective statement?
If we define everything to be subjective then of course no one can be objective. But that isn’t a very motivating development of the idea in any case.
I am totally objective. Everybody who differs from my objective findings does so because they are incapable of being totally objective. It’s that simple, really.
"… from my objective findings … "
Please, please tell me how your ‘findings’ were found.
I think we try to be reasonably objective, but never even attempt total objectivity. I am not going to define what “reasonable” objectivity is, because it is a subjective term. I believe total objectivity is complete apathy. How can you possibly conclude that it is better to be alive than dead if you do not favor one of them? How can you conclude that pleasure is better than pain unless you have a preference? The only completely objective conclusion I have ever come up with is that, in the end, nothing matters (and even then I cannot prove I was objective).
SO I cannot make an objective statement about my mental state; i.e…- “I am tired”?
acorrding to Einstein “All things are relative”
so the answer is no.
Objectively of course, silly!