The Pursuit of Objectivity
I’ve had the following idea kicking around my head for some time, and this is a space for ideas. So here goes one.
When something happens, it’s observed by people. The record of the occasion’s existence is recorded in the subjective experiences of its witnesses. The most accurate recountings of reality will thus always be recountings that incorporate the broadest swath of perspectives.
This allows end-users to determine for themselves the forces that were at play in the culmination of a given occasion, and form their own opinions. Believing in the preservation of liberty – the preservation of Sunstein and Thaler’s “libertarian paternalism” – that old redeeming quality of academic Americanism, it behooves the introspective human to invite perspectives other than their own in as many facets of public recountings as possible.
The occasion singularly recounted is an occasion seen through only one lens.
If we agree that objectivity is the summation of subjectivities, then we must agree that the most pure recountings – those that most closely approach objectivity - will be those that incorporate the greatest possible number of perspectives / subjective experiences.
-Sean
Related posts:
- Choice Architecture Like a lot of people, I’v
- Choice Architecture and Health Care Reform We’ve talked a lot
Accuracy in the context you use it would be the closest recounting to the truth, or what actually happened in reality. Your last thesis sounds valid assuming we agree on objectivity. Your first thesis, however, states that “the most accurate recountings of reality will always be recountings that incorporate the broadest swath of perspectives.” In order for this these to be valid we would have to assume that objectivity = accuracy. Interpretations of an event cannot be treated like numbers. The average is not necessarily the correct answer. The fact that you have the largest number of varying prespectives does not ensure reaching truth or even getting closer to it.
Bob,
Thanks for pointing that out. Do we disagree about objectivity being an ideal to strive for? I am not entirely sure that objectivity need equal accuracy. Isn’t accuracy, after all, subjective to a given set of standards. In the pursuit of objectivity – I think we seek not to average the subjective experiences of many, but simply to incorporate them into our recounting. To display the distribution, not just the average. As the greater the distribution, the more observations we can plot, the closer we can come to identifying patterns – however loose – that inch us closer to understanding a given instance of reality.
Interesting post drsean. I think I have to agree with Bob that the largest number of perspectives doesn’t necessarily lead to accuracy (“objectivity”). It may be more likely to, but not necessarily. However, I think there is a sense in which your idea about multiple perspectives is important (see below). It’s hard to talk abstractly like this, but it seems like you have to define the point of “objectivity.” If it’s not about accuracy or getting at “reality”, what is it about? It sounds like your formulation calls for a massive vote on what is true. A lot more is needed if the goal is arriving at an accurate description of reality.
There are two broader areas related to this that come to my mind regarding drsean’s point about accounting for multiple perspectives. One has to do with historical accounts, one has to do with scientific inquiry.
On objectivity and historical accounts, I think Howard Zinn’s point is worth considering- Here is what he’s said about objectivity in writing history:
“I’ve said two things about it. One, that it’s not possible. Two, it’s not desirable. It’s not possible because all history is a selection out of an infinite number of facts. As soon as you begin to select, you select according to what you think is important. Therefore it is already not objective. It’s already biased in the direction of whatever you, as the selector of this information, think people should know. So it’s really not possible. Of course, some people claim to be objective. The worst thing is to claim to be objective. Of course you can’t be. Historians should say what their values are, what they care about, what their background is, and let you know what is important to them so that young people and everybody who reads history are warned in advance that they should never count on any one source, but should go to many sources. So it’s not possible to be objective.”
The other area has to do with scientific inquiry, and it ties back with what drsean says about the importance of different perspectives. Objectivity in a scientific inquiry is a bit different compared to writing history, and certainly I’d argue that objectivity is at least more possible in science, and very desirable. Scientific methods aim to establish true descriptions of the natural world and how it works. At least that’s how I understand it. Since it’s a narrower and different task than writing history, I think you can argue that science can more easily minimize personal biases, and get closer to an accurate description of reality (i.e.“objective”). Here is a summary of that argument I wrote for a philosophy of science class. The argument summarized here is made by Helen Longino:
Longino argues that the social nature of scientific inquiry allows for the objectivity of scientific knowledge despite the contextual values of individual scientists.
Because science is a group activity, it creates the possibility for intersubjective criticism between individual scientists. This allows (but is not sufficient for) science to be objective, even in the face of context dependent reasoning, and background assumptions. Scientific knowledge can be more independent of the background assumptions of individual scientists if a number of conditions are met which ensure that these background assumptions are scrutinized. It must be possible for the background assumptions of scientists to be articulated and subjected to criticism by the scientific community from a number of perspectives. Also, the expression of criticism from diverse viewpoints cannot simply be allowed, but must be “transformative:” criticism must have the possibility of having an impact on the status of the scientific questions and the background assumptions that are under the consideration of the scientific community.
Longino lists four conditions necessary for “transformative criticism” to thrive: recognized avenues must exist for the criticism of evidence, methods, assumptions and reasoning (e.g. peer review); shared, community-wide standards must exist that critics can invoke; the scientific community as a group must be responsive to criticism; and finally intellectual authority must be shared equally by qualified scientists (i.e., no subgroup should come to dominate other scientists).
Objectivity on Longino’s view is thus a matter of degree; more or less objectivity can be ascribed to a scientific community’s inquiry depending on the depth and scope of “transformative criticism” and critical dialogue exhibited by the community that is engaging in the inquiry.
Longino notes that a number of factors can limit the extent of criticism, thus limiting the objectivity of a scientific community. One limiting condition she cites happens when “background assumptions are shared by all members of a community,” and are thus often “unavailable for criticism.” She also says that “the greater the number of different points of view in a given community, the more likely it is that its scientific practice will be objective.”
Combining these two ideas, it would be possible to have a high number of criticisms from different points of view, but all of which are within the shared assumptions of the community. In this situation, it would (on Longino’s view) be considered very objective because of the high number of critical viewpoints. However, since the criticisms are with in the shared community assumptions, the assumptions are “unavailable for criticism,” meaning the label of objectivity may be misleading if the shared assumptions are systematically biased. This would mean there could be systematic biases within the scientific community (due to similar educations, training, etc.) which are not only masked, but labeled as highly objective.”
So on this argument, multiple perspectives are almost required for a scientific pursuit to be “objective.” It’s a lot more than a scatter plot of viewpoints. I agree objectivity doesn’t equal accuracy, but perhaps more or less liklihood of accuracy. Great topic. Sorry for the length.
Ian –
Thanks for the length, though I can participate in only pieces for now – from your, “If it’s not about accuracy or getting at “reality”, what is it about?” It is about getting at the drivers, the root causes, what explains why something happened. Its true that I minced words and jumped the hurdle of objectivity and accuracy a little early – and I agree that objectivity might be an impossible ideal – but what about truth? Can we talk about the useage of multiple perspectives towards the ends of improving our understanding of why things happen? To get to the truth behind a given occasion or instance of reality? Does truth even really exist though… does it suffer the same problem as objectivity – an ethereal ideal ultimately unachievable?
Hey Bob – what say you? Nice splash, lets see you swim…