Is the concept of objectivity a myth?
Nov. 21st, 2020 01:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdiI've been meditating on subjectivity and objectivity lately, courtesy of an exchange with barefootwisdom. We're all taught as children that there is such a thing as objective Truth, and that even though we are limited by our subjective senses, the Truth can be discovered through the scientific method. In the last week, though, I've come to think that even a subjective universe can be consistent enough to admit the use of the scientific method; and that if we don't need to resort to the notion of objectivity in order to model the universe, then (by Ockham's Razor) we shouldn't.
(Why, then, is the concept taught? Presumably to propagandize children into an implicit belief in a mechanistic universe in which gods and goddesses have no place.)
That's all good enough for me, but I thought I might be better served by asking someone less bound by a lack of perspective as I am.
I am represented by Cauda Draconis in the the I (a traditional indication that I already know, or think I know, the answer and am shopping for a confirmation), while the concept of objectivity is represented by Amissio (the figure of loss) in the IX (of deep knowledge). The I perfects to the IX by a conjunction through the X (strengthened slightly by company capitular). The I is in planetary company with Rubeus in the II (of things held closely, indicating my prior worldview), while Amissio also occupies the V (of pleasures) and VII (of the being I'm asking my question to). Interestingly, these three figures (Rubeus, Cauda Draconis, and Amissio) also make up the court.
All told, I think this says: "Yes, for whatever it's worth, I agree with you and think that the world is more fun and interesting if you drop the concept altogether. You were misinstructed as a child, but you managed to figure things out for yourself in the end."
barefootwisdom. We're all taught as children that there is such a thing as objective Truth, and that even though we are limited by our subjective senses, the Truth can be discovered through the scientific method. In the last week, though, I've come to think that even a subjective universe can be consistent enough to admit the use of the scientific method; and that if we don't need to resort to the notion of objectivity in order to model the universe, then (by Ockham's Razor) we shouldn't.(Why, then, is the concept taught? Presumably to propagandize children into an implicit belief in a mechanistic universe in which gods and goddesses have no place.)
That's all good enough for me, but I thought I might be better served by asking someone less bound by a lack of perspective as I am.
I am represented by Cauda Draconis in the the I (a traditional indication that I already know, or think I know, the answer and am shopping for a confirmation), while the concept of objectivity is represented by Amissio (the figure of loss) in the IX (of deep knowledge). The I perfects to the IX by a conjunction through the X (strengthened slightly by company capitular). The I is in planetary company with Rubeus in the II (of things held closely, indicating my prior worldview), while Amissio also occupies the V (of pleasures) and VII (of the being I'm asking my question to). Interestingly, these three figures (Rubeus, Cauda Draconis, and Amissio) also make up the court.
All told, I think this says: "Yes, for whatever it's worth, I agree with you and think that the world is more fun and interesting if you drop the concept altogether. You were misinstructed as a child, but you managed to figure things out for yourself in the end."