Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Are you objective?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 61 of 75 (775773)
01-04-2016 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by LamarkNewAge
01-04-2016 7:22 PM


isn't this horse dead yet?
How does
" ... How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country. ... "
equal
" ... describing whites as the most anti-immigration people in the USA... "
???
As I see it - objectively - Percy could equally mean whites are most pro-immigration ...
What it does mean to me -objectively - is that immigration is seen differently by different races. Period. Something you have gone to some length to validate.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 7:22 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 62 of 75 (775774)
01-04-2016 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
01-04-2016 8:07 PM


Re: isn't this horse dead yet?
I want to see exactly what he is talking about.
He used three issue examples in the OP complete with 2 different sides to each issue.
I want to see how he can correct the objectivity of each group.
But first he can show us how each side lacks objectivity.
See #59
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:35 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 75 (775778)
01-04-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by LamarkNewAge
01-04-2016 8:09 PM


Re: isn't this horse dead yet?
2?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:09 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 75 (775780)
01-04-2016 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by GDR
01-04-2016 7:56 PM


Impartial vs objective
I think your comment raises an important point about objectivity and impartiality. Does the fact I obviously hold a position on the subjects in question mean that I fail the objectivity test? Maybe. But I would argue that impartiality and objectivity are different.
The BBC by law has to be politically impartial. It sometimes goes to ridiculous lengths and contortions to be seen to be politically neutral. One aspect of this is that things like climate change when discussed in news programs gets a talking head representing both sides of the argument regardless of the fact that one side is considerably more evidenced than the other.
If evidence is key to objectivity then this sort of neutral position may be impartial without being sufficiently objective. If that makes any sense......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 01-04-2016 7:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 01-04-2016 9:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 65 of 75 (775783)
01-04-2016 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
01-04-2016 8:54 PM


Re: Impartial vs objective
Straggler writes:
I think your comment raises an important point about objectivity and impartiality. Does the fact I obviously hold a position on the subjects in question mean that I fail the objectivity test? Maybe. But I would argue that impartiality and objectivity are different.
What I saw in the way you worded your post was that your mind was made up already. The implication, as I saw it, in your post was that someone with a different perspective, or maybe even new evidence wouldn't make any difference, and that you were no longer objective.
However, I know you don't think that way and I meant as just a bit of humour.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2016 8:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2016 3:30 AM GDR has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 66 of 75 (775794)
01-05-2016 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
01-04-2016 9:27 PM


Re: Impartial vs objective
I realise that.
But I do think it raises an interesting point regarding the difference between impartiality and objectivity.
Having a firm but evidence based position may well be objective without being neutral.
But one should obviously be 'impartial' to the extent of being open to new evidence in order to achieve objectivity.
Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 01-04-2016 9:27 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2016 4:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 67 of 75 (775795)
01-05-2016 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
01-05-2016 3:30 AM


Re: Impartial vs objective
I think it perfectly reasonable to have opinions based on prior experience/investigation which are going to be quite hard to shift. We don't go through the world empty-headed, assessing each situation as though we haven't come across it before.
It's our ability to take on and objectively assess new information that might challenge already formed positions that's critical.
It's also an approach to life - we can all assess an EVC poster's ability to be objective after a year or so of reading their posts. Some are and some aren't. Some are usually but on particular subjects they're not.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2016 3:30 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2016 8:45 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 75 (775799)
01-05-2016 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by LamarkNewAge
01-04-2016 7:22 PM


Re: I would have just left it after 1 post.
Thank you again for another round of misinterpretation and inanity.
Not that it will help, but I'll explain this this one more time. This thread is about how one's group affiliations affect objectivity. I introduced three examples, evolution, immigration, and guns, and the article I cited introduced another example, the performance of the economy. Those were just examples of where group affiliation affects objectivity. They were examples, not topics of discussion. Participants can continue to use these examples in a discussion about objectivity and group affiliation, but they are not themselves the topic of this thread.
One more time:
This thread is not about evolution.
This thread is not about immigration.
This thread is not about guns.
This thread is not about the economy.
This thread is about group affiliation and it's impact on objectivity. Anyone who wishes to use the examples from the opening post in their own messages is free to do so, but please understand that they are not the topic.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 7:22 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 75 (775800)
01-05-2016 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by LamarkNewAge
01-04-2016 8:02 PM


Re: "Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right"
Hi LamarkNewAge,
The specific examples were chosen because of their very wide familiarity. If they're not familiar to you then that's surprising, but they're so well known you should have no trouble familiarizing yourself with them.
LamarkNewAge writes:
quote:
How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.
Forget about the "so on" part.
Forget about the "so on" part? You do realize that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera," right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:02 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-05-2016 9:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 75 (775803)
01-05-2016 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tangle
01-05-2016 4:55 AM


Re: Impartial vs objective
Given the topic of group affiliation we should probably consider what groups we might be affiliated to. I'm white, male, European, British, city dwelling, 40 odd years old etc. These cultural factors are going to influence my opinions to a considerable degree and it's probably silly to deny that. In terms of EvC posters - We seem to be predominantly male and mainly from either the US or UK with the odd notable exception. There seems to be a wide age range here and a reasonable mix of educational backgrounds, veering towards a scientific bent as one might expect given the forum's primary theme.
In global terms us EvCers are quite a homogenous group. The most obvious splits are along lines of religiosity where the UKers and Europeans seem to be notably more atheistic in general and the most religious members tend to be American. The the other notable split is (in the widest sense) political. Economically and politically I would suggest the Europeans are fairly consistently more left wing with the US members tending to be more right wing but with more individual variation and sme 'passionate' views on individual topics such as those mentioned in the OP (guns, climate etc.)
If we largely fall into line with the cultural norms around us how objective can we really claim to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2016 4:55 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2016 1:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 71 of 75 (775826)
01-05-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
01-05-2016 8:45 AM


Re: Impartial vs objective
Straggler writes:
These cultural factors are going to influence my opinions to a considerable degree and it's probably silly to deny that.
Yup. Where we stand affects what we are able to see.
If we largely fall into line with the cultural norms around us how objective can we really claim to be?
Well we know objectively that no-one is imune from cognative bias. As Percy's opening post says, I judge myself more than averagely objective. (Which is, of course, objectively true :-). But I regularly catch myself trying to dismiss inconvenient evidence without properly considering it.
The difference though is that the cultural norms that I hold dear are the scientific, evidence based processes for establishing fact. That's really all we have that knowledge can grow from.
As far as EVC goes, we know who's normally rational and who's normally not. It gets interesting when you see the normally rational people abandon critical thinking when the subject involves stuff that they irrationally believe in - gun control springs to mind.
But sometimes the arguments here are fake so often it's hard to tell - arguments for arguments sake. It's possible to argue any point at all, no matter how stupid it is, and make it seem rational. No names, no pack drill.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2016 8:45 AM Straggler has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 72 of 75 (775860)
01-05-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
01-05-2016 7:48 AM


Re: "Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right"
quote:
Percy
How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.
quote:
Percy
LNA said
"Forget about the 'so on' part."
Forget about the "so on" part? You do realize that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera," right?
You seem to want to forget you said anything at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 01-05-2016 7:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 01-06-2016 8:21 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 73 of 75 (775861)
01-05-2016 10:24 PM


Objectivity issues of guns, murders & violence
I put "prayer in school removed" into the bing.com search engine.
prayer in school removed - Search
hit #2 was creationtoday.org site with "Prayer in School Affects all of Society. ... Since prayer was removed from public school classrooms in 1962, we have had a six-fold increase in violent crime, ..." in cache
(or the only cache our nihilistic courts allow anymore with the tyrannical copyright laws and decisions)
These have been common claims for decades.
It's interesting because since detailed homicide records were kept since 1963, year after year in recent times(up till about 2014) has shown the per capita murder rate to drop nationwide to "the lowest level since records were kept" (i.e. lower than the school prayer year). In New York City the absolute # of murders have fallen from about 3,000 per year in 1980 down to around 400 per year now. And the per capita rate is more impressive since the population rose from 7 million to 8.3 million. Additionally, the minority population went from around 33% (?) in 1980 up to about 57% in 2014, so it shot down any ideas that "murders increase as the white population decreases".
The numbers have contradicted that common claim that removing school prayer equals more murders.
New York has a lot of gun control so will gun control advocates use that city to support their pre-conceived views? I wouldn't doubt it.
Be careful when people use X to prove Y. That might work for a while (like the school prayer chorus using the murder rate in the 70s and 80s) and in some corners or the universe. But the situation can change rather dramatically as time moves forward and in different locals.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 74 of 75 (775872)
01-06-2016 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by LamarkNewAge
01-05-2016 9:38 PM


Re: "Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right"
LamarkNewAge writes:
quote:
Percy
LNA said
"Forget about the 'so on' part."
Forget about the "so on" part? You do realize that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera," right?
You seem to want to forget you said anything at all.
Of course I don't want people to forget what I said. What I'd like them to forget is what you claimed I said, because I didn't say it. You made a misinterpretation, it's been explained to you, not once but many times, it's time to drop it. They were examples, not subtopics of discussion. Continue to use them as examples if you like, but they are not the main topic. If any of those examples are something you would like to discuss as a main topic then you can open a new thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics.
Your puzzling comment to forget the "so on" part seems like something a non-native speaker of English might say, so I explained that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera". In that context it meant, "And other examples of the same nature."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-05-2016 9:38 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 75 of 75 (775884)
01-06-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
01-04-2016 12:55 PM


Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
I try to form opinions objectively...
This is a rather interesting (and even somewhat poignant) comment in my mind. Subconsciously, I try to avoid forming opinions at all, because I'm afraid that my opinions will create biases. I've been involved in university discussion groups where people have tried to convince me that it's okay --- desirable, even --- to form opinions and fight for them, even if they turn out to be wrong. I guess the idea is that we should acknowledge that scientists are individually flawed and biases, but that the free-market economy if ideas will be objective enough to weed out the wrong ideas whether or not the individuals are being objective.
When I'm in the minority (e.g., among my devout-Mormon family over Christmas), I tend to get the nagging feeling that perhaps I am too confident in the views I have developed, and that it's time to reconsider them. I feel like this is a good thing overall (although it can be very stressful), because I am able to repeatedly reaffirm my conclusions even though my confidence in myself is regularly shaken by it.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2016 12:55 PM NoNukes has seen this message but 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