The science of being Objective...
The following is a recommended methodology in achieving greater objectivity when presenting a concept or analysing the integrity of existing information.
My reason for this thread is born out of frustration...
Establishing the objectivity, or relative objectivity, of information is the third aspect of evaluating information. While it is unlikely that anything humans do is ever absolutely objective, it is important to establish that the information you intend to use is reasonably objective, or if it is not, to establish exactly what the point of view or bias is. There are times when information expressing a particular point of view or bias is useful, but you must use it consciously. You must know what the point of view is and why that point of view is important to your project.
Another part of objectivity / point of view / bias worth considering is the question of your own personal point of view or bias. Having a point of view or bias on a topic is not bad - you should have developed some sort of opinion about your project. The question revolves around what you do with it. You can use your own point of view to shape your interpretation of the information available on a topic, as long as you:
honestly acknowledge all points of view on an issue
logically and fairly address those which disagree with your own
do not ignore or dismiss information because it does not support with your point of view
document your point of view to the best of your ability
Some indications that that information is reasonably objective are:
all relevant data is presented; even when it does not support the preferred point of view
all views of an issue are presented and none are preferred
all views of an issue are presented even though one is preferred
the topic is presented in a clear and logical manner
assertions, statements, opinions, etc. are documented
a variety of reliable sources are used to support the point being made
the purpose is clearly stated
Some indications that information may not be objective
only one view of an issue is presented
other views of an issue are attacked or ignored
not all data is presented; only data supporting the preferred point of view is presented
assertions, statements, opinions are presented as facts without adequate documentation
emotion-arousing language is used to persuade the audience of a point without any accompanying documentation
derogatory language is used
the presentation is illogical or contains logical fallacies
the purpose is not clearly stated or is hidden
converting the audience to a particular point of view is the primary purpose
http://www.info-skills.lib.vt.edu/evalu ... nfo/8.html
There is no question I am a scout who has difficulty with what could be described as a blinkered thinking mentality...
Sometime I wonder if there is any thinking involved at all...
The main reason I included this podcast in this thread is because I was ROTFLMFAO!
While it gives a good presentation of confirmation bias, it hardly involved "the science of objectivity" I am wishing to present when the presenter gives his political example...
This bias was stated as being deliberate, and boy did he do a good job...<chcukle>
BTW, it isn't the elephant you need to worry about, it is rather the infernal internal emotional reptilian beast...
Absolute objectivity only occurs in a utopia.
One should seek to be as objective as possible, however.
I try to consider all sides before I make a determination.
I determined, for example, that the Holocaust occurred, based upon a preponderance of the evidence. My subjective side wishes it never happened.
Unconscious bias is not a conspiracy theory...
It is used/manipulated in advertising "religiously"...
To attain a higher degree of objectivity one must:
- "know thy self"...
- know the psychological principles used in childhood indoctrination...
- know that tribalism is real...
- know the Truth of the evolutionary process and how it has moulded our collective minds...
<angrily shakes fist in the air at the evolutionary process>
One should seek to be as objective as possible, however.
I try to consider all sides before I make a determination.
I determined, for example, that the Holocaust occurred, based upon a preponderance of the evidence. My subjective side wishes it never happened.
To be clear, so there is no misunderstanding:
Krafty, I like you...
You are a very decent person...
Cheers m8...
Cheers...
This is topic is about "objectivity".
People who fail to realize that "truth is unknowable" get biased by purported truths like "facts, evidence, what they see/hear, what "experts" say ... ". They lose their objectivity in the face of all these "facts".
They let opinion/interpretation influence them so much, that they come to believe "facts" means "truth".
They also become resistant to alternate possible "truths".
_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.
Last edited by LoveNotHate on 22 Jan 2018, 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers...
This is topic is about "objectivity".
People who fail to realize that "truth is unknowable" get biased by purported truths like "facts, evidence, what they see/hear, what "experts" say ... ". They lose their objectivity in the face of all these "facts".
They let opinion/interpretation influence them so much, that they're resistant to alternate explanations.
People can't handle the ''unknowable truth'' when they have build an identity of a know-it-all.
_________________
not diagnosed
sorry for butchering the english language and obsessively re-editing my posts.
Cheers...
This is topic is about "objectivity".
People who fail to realize that "truth is unknowable" get biased by purported truths like "facts, evidence, what they see/hear, what "experts" say ... ". They lose their objectivity in the face of all these "facts".
They let opinion/interpretation influence them so much, that they're resistant to alternate explanations.
Thank you for your post...
Would it be correct to say the context of your post is focused on philosophical consideration?
Cheers...
This is topic is about "objectivity".
People who fail to realize that "truth is unknowable" get biased by purported truths like "facts, evidence, what they see/hear, what "experts" say ... ". They lose their objectivity in the face of all these "facts".
They let opinion/interpretation influence them so much, that they're resistant to alternate explanations.
People can't handle the ''unknowable truth'' when they have build an identity of a know-it-all.
Thank you for your post...
The context of this thread has more to do with objective methodology when presenting ideas/arguments and the analysis of the objectivity of previously presented arguments/intellectual-constructs...
Cheers...
Confirmation bias is something like a special interest to me.
And what LoveNotHate said is right. It is practical and beneficial to always asume that our fact-based opinions could be wrong . For example Socrates probably never said the above phrase .
Now Pepe, you made a point and tagged some sources, but you are not open to have a public discussion around the topic.(?)
_________________
not diagnosed
sorry for butchering the english language and obsessively re-editing my posts.
Now Pepe, you made a point and tagged some sources, but you are not open to have a public discussion around the topic.(?)
Thank you for your very reasonable comment...
Have you read my 2 previous posts before this one?
I would like to discuss the objective methodology as describe by my first post using the guideline obtained from the VirginiaTech web site: http://www.info-skills.lib.vt.edu/evalu ... nfo/8.html
This a learning thread for me (apparently that is all I create...lol), so I wish to stick to the context I provided initially in the first post:
"The following is a recommended methodology in achieving greater objectivity when presenting a concept or analysing the integrity of existing information."
I guess I would like some order to this discussion in particular...
And ideally, I would like a resolution which would give me greater skills in future endeavours...
Experience has taught me many conversations/threads go off the rails if parameters, definitions and context are not defined...
I am merely politely indicating where the borders of this discussion are...
Clear as mud?
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
The Science Behind the "Spinach Mouth Phenomenon" |
09 Apr 2024, 9:30 pm |