Rob, there are obviously few real objectivists here. A real objectivist would demonstrate their point by both listening to and measuring the phenomenon observed by the subjectivist. I consider myself to be in the objectivist camp, but not to the exclusion of some subjective observation. What frustrates me is the lazy nature of most subjective/objective argument. A subjectivist only has to listen to make their point. An objectivist has to both listen and measure. Simply telling the subjectivist to go away and come back with proof in the form of a measured difference is both lazy and patronising. And sadly that is what most of the arguments amount to.
If you want to make a difference then simply adopting a philosophy is not enough. There also has to be the behind the scenes work and measurement to support your point of view. That all takes time, money and considerable expertise few in the 'objectivist camp' actually possess.
Quoted from Wikipedia is a definition of objectivity in scientific circumstances. It is obviously not the only definition but I like it because it points out to me just what a minefield it is but does suggest to me that it is the responsibility of the objectivist to do the ground work and prove or disprove any errant claims. Otherwise you end up telling a subjectivist they need to be more objective which is why the result is conflict.
If you want to make a difference then simply adopting a philosophy is not enough. There also has to be the behind the scenes work and measurement to support your point of view. That all takes time, money and considerable expertise few in the 'objectivist camp' actually possess.
Quoted from Wikipedia is a definition of objectivity in scientific circumstances. It is obviously not the only definition but I like it because it points out to me just what a minefield it is but does suggest to me that it is the responsibility of the objectivist to do the ground work and prove or disprove any errant claims. Otherwise you end up telling a subjectivist they need to be more objective which is why the result is conflict.
In short, is Zerogain simply going to talk the talk or are they going to do what is required to qualify their objectivist stance.Some people[who?] regard science as objective in this sense and this objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them.[citation needed] It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction.[citation needed]
However, this traditional view about objectivity ignores several things. First, the selection of the specific object to measure is typically a subjective decision and it often involves reductionism. Second, and potentially much more problematic, is the selection of instruments (tools) and the selection of the measurement methodology. Some features or qualities of the object under study will be ignored in the measurement process and the limitations of the chosen instruments will cause data to be left out of consideration. In addition to these absolute limits of objectivity surrounding the measurement process, any given community of researchers often shares certain "subjective views" and this subjectivity is therefore built in to the conceptual systems; and it can even be built in to the design of the tools used for measurement. Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in someââ'¬â€or maybe allââ'¬â€situations.[citation needed]