The science of being Objective...

Post Reply New 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?

5 tips to improve your critical thinking

What is critical thinking?



One of the definitions presented:

"Think like a judge..."
Now why didn't I think of that...<chuckle>

While the Socratic paradox is an important lesson in humility guarding against hubris, just reciting it as a mantra is useless and unproductive. There is such a thing as "objective enough". If one person argues that the earth is flat, and one argues that it's round, then one is objectively more correct than the other. The pedant may enter the stage and say "um, actually it's ellipsoid!" and indeed technically be slightly more correct, or we can say ten Hail Socrates, ignore observable reality and just get cozy in Plato's Cave.

How accurate must something be before you'll concede that it's an objective fact? Pi has an infinite number of decimals, but, none past the 16th are ever used in calculations. Will you insist that the sum total of a literally infinite number be inserted into a calculation, lest the end result not be accurate enough to be called objective?

This whisky is great!

Pii is derived from axioms.

"Axioms and postulates are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive knowledge. They are accepted without demonstration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

So is Pii an objective fact? No. It doesn't even exist. Someone made it up. They even admit to making it up. Further, whether it has any bearing in reality , or would have any meaning if humans no longer existed, is argued by philosophers (math realists vs math anti-realists). I say Pii doesn't have existential meaning. If you disagree, then you should at least be able to explain how "real numbers" objectively exist, since Pii is a "real number".

That's critical thinking.

Your argument "objective enough" , which is like the saying, "close enough for government work" is lazy thinking.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/close-eno ... nment-work

For someone who relentlessly quotes Socrates, you don't seem to be too keen on questions. Instead you take an assertion I didn't make, turn it into a question and then answer that yourself, ignoring the questions I actually posed. Well obfuscated!

I answered your question.


From above .... "So is Pii an objective fact? No. It doesn't even exist. Someone made it up. They even admit to making it up. Further, whether it has any bearing in reality , or would have any meaning if humans no longer existed, is argued by philosophers (math realists vs math anti-realists)".

"I say Pii doesn't have existential meaning".

Passion is the nemesis of objective consideration...
In no way can an emotion infused investigation ever equal the quality of objectivity that can be achieved through pure intellectual engagement...

The Oracle of Truth has spoken...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4RLfVxTGH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnJ1bqXUnIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oAf3g5_138
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dItUGF8GdTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xKklLplngs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwyVCJxiVdM