-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you not notice similarities of subjective experience among various individuals in certain aspects of reality such as quantity consistency?
Consensus =/= Objectivity; mass subscription to a standard =/= Objectivity; consistency =/= objectivity.
A bias is something a person would prefer due to its benefits for that individual. I don't see how this benefits me specifically. I also don't see the circular reasoning you are abstractly referring to.
The bias of which I speak is necessarily present in your impression of an underlying commonality which you have suggested informs the theory of objectivity. Because your formulations, your observations, your calculations will always be subject to your experience, your theory is in and of itself biased--its benefit to you notwithstanding. Your reasoning is circular because the premise of your assumption is your assumption.
My point remains because we were able to discover new chemicals and create new compounds before we could see the atom.
How does "discovery" escape bias?
Second, it's hard to say what qualifies as an image of an atom. I could claim my photograph of the couch is a picture of atoms.Does this image seem like an atom to you: https://www.news-medical.net/image.axd?picture=2018%2f7%2fCornell_atom_image_a61c3418583143b9a8197696f3b31f23-310x240.jpg
This informs my point: that which qualifies as an image of an atom is subject to the standard one accepts; the proposition that it exists as such independent of observation or perspective is irrelevant.
The idea I'm presenting is that we have been able to make much use of theories and concepts in all aspects of science.
My dispute is not against theories in general; my dispute is against the affirmation of objectivity.
It doesn't establish a proof of independence of the mind.
Then it cannot be "objective."
It establishes a proof that the theory of independence of the mind has much application in our subjective reality. Again, I say it is the "theory of objectivity" that is useful to us, not objective reality as a place.
Then perhaps "objectivity" is not the appropriate term to apply to this theory.
You are suggesting in order to theorize an objective reality we must experience it. While I see you draw a connection of experience, I believe it's more reasonable that by understanding our many subjective experiences and the underlying commonalities we are able to theorize the ultimate subjective reality or the reality devoid of subjective experience, which is the theory of objective reality, regardless of whether we've experienced directly.
What does theorizing the ultimate subjective reality have to do with theorizing an objective reality? Why does underlying commonality lead you to assume or theorize objectivity?
The basis for proposing a theory of objectivity is its utility. I'm not proposing that there is a world beyond subjectivity. In essence, whether the objective world exists or not is irrelevant since we can never experience it, but the theory of objectivity has served many purposes in our subjective realm. Therefore, out of practicality, I find the theory of objective reality essential to understand.
Then perhaps "objectivity" is not the appropriate term to apply to this theory.
It's more than merely a perception,
How?
it's an underlying consistency,
How does underlying consistency = beyond perception?
It seems to me that you are suggesting that numbers and empirical evidence are merely perceptions of individuals, I am in agreement.
I don't do "seem." (Seem is not an argument.) I am stating as much.
However, it is not the point. I'm trying to explain that the underlying consistency among subjectivity can be better understood by using the theory of objectivity. I do not claim it to be a real place or something that can be experienced since by definition objectivity cannot be experienced, but that the theory can be utilized to benefit ourselves.
Then perhaps "objectivity" is not the appropriate term to apply to this theory.
Would you explain what materialist misconception you are trying to avoid?
The misconception of which I speak is that objectivity can be determined by materialist standards, i.e. analysis and expressions of physical concepts.
They are commonly accepted to be,
Consensus =/= objectivity.
and without a sufficient explanation besides "They're not," you are hardly convincing me.
Empiricism is necessarily subjective; therefore empirical data is necessarily subjective. I assumed you knew this, which explains my lack of a sufficient explanation.
Then let me rephrase myself so you may follow. "The theory of objectivity is a crucial aspect of reality to understand." Since people are incapable of experiencing a world devoid of experience such as an objective reality it is merely theoretical and henceforth why objectivity is referred to as a theory. Thus, when I say objectivity is a crucial aspect of reality to understand I am referring to the theory since there is nothing more than the theory to understand.
The misconception of which I speak is that objectivity can be determined by materialist standards, i.e. analysis and expressions of physical concepts.
I cannot know for certain if a meteor with strike my home, yet I make the assumption it will not.
But you've experienced meteors. Not necessarily being hit by one, but seeing how they're described, and gauging the likelihood one would hit your home at random. This is not the same for claims of objectivity, which is absolutely devoid experience or observation. Anything you state which intends to inform objectivity will only be a projection of your own bias.
Simultaneously, while being uncertain since I don''st know,
There's a difference between "not knowing" and being "incapable of knowing."
Every time anyone goes to their home, they are acting on the unknown presumption a meteor will not strike. I consider this to be evidence that we can act upon the unknown.
Except it isn't an unknown. If it were an unknown, you wouldn't know what a meteor was. In which case, your taking the chances of a meteor striking your home into consideration would be inapplicable.
Secondly, I am referring to utilizing something we cannot conceptualize in our mind through theoretical representation,
And how does this escape bias?
I may not fully understand how a car, fridge, phone, or laptop work, yet I put them to use daily
It's not the same.
Similarly, the objective theory of the world cannot every be understood or experienced, yet we can utilize the theory in many ways since it is meant to be the underlying concept of subjective reality, bettering our understanding of others.
Why is that which we can never understand or experience the underlying concept for that which we do understand and experience? That isn't a sound proposition.
