Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Objectivity and the Mindless Middle
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 9 of 17 (549329)
03-05-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
03-04-2010 7:11 PM


Hi Rahvin, good topic!
On this forum, as on any debate forum, the topic of objectivity vs. subjectivity is often raised. Some of us try to maintain objectivity in our arguments; others make no claims of objectivity at all. Some members adhere rigorously to facts; others are convinced that religious experiences and dogma show that the "facts" have been misinterpreted. In all of these cases, we all fight (or attempt to fight) the innate problems of human bias, the inevitable coloring of our interpretation of facts by our own already-established opinions.
And then there is the Mindless Middle.
We see this effect in politics as well. Many people consider both Republicans and Democrats (here in the US, anyway) to be examples of two extremes, and that the "Correct" course of action lies somewhere in betweenthe right and left.
Whether we believe that life's variety is the result of evolution, or special Creation, or an extraterrestrial High School genetics project gone wild, has absolutely no relevance as to which one (if any) has any degree of accuracy.
Only objectivity allows us to be reasonably assured that our conclusions accurately reflect the real world external to our minds. If wishes were wings, we wouldn't need airplanes.
Economist Thomas Sowell wrote a book a few years ago called A Conflict of Visions , and I think it neatly sums up the beginning areas of what causes the human bias that leads to most of the complications that you describe above. He divides the two extremes by referring to them as constrained vs. unconstrained visions. While Sowell applies this mainly to conservative vs. liberal politics, I think it also figures heavily in the creation vs evolution debate as well. I’ll try to condense, as briefly as possible, how he describes those two opposing visions.
The constrained vision looks upon human limitations, imperfections, and egocentricity as unchangeable, and seeks to make the best of the possibilities of life within those constraints, rather than dissipate energies in an attempt to change human nature.
The unconstrained vision believes in the constant creation of new benefits, by yet untapped potential of human beings. That humans are perfectible, meaning continually improvable rather than capable of actually reaching absolute perfection.
This isn’t to say that the constrained vision doesn’t believe in technological advances, but it does have limits in what it believes humans are capable of. The unconstrained vision has few, if any of those limits, and of course the vision of most of today’s scientific community is unconstrained. It’s gotten to the point where definitions of objectivity have become subjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 03-04-2010 7:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024