On objectivity

“Is objectivity real?”

Well, no.

BUT, this doesn’t not mean that ‘reality’ itself is not real either or that accurary, preferentiality, or empiricism also do not exist. Simply that they are tighter approximations of an objective ideal that philosophizing alone cannot outdo. But the objective ideal is just that: an ideal. Not reality, or even an accessible plane. Much like Plato’s world of math, there are no straight lines in reality. Those exist only in our minds.

Given that humans are participants in the very world they test and observe, they are inherently subjective observers, with either a obvious or hidden partiality that may or may not be discernable to any other human at any given time (or even time period). Any brushes with ‘objectivity’ one might say are simply a clever human besting their jury of peer observers who fail to spot the partiality, or perhaps more likely being the case with ‘Big Science’: the partiality of the proclaimant is along the same lines as the observers, gifting the objective ‘truth’ label to their claim. A claim of objectivity is akin to the spotting of a ghost. You yourself may have many reasons to believe, but others have many more reasons to doubt.

Empirical measurements too aren’t without their partiality. Both the very attention to one particular subject over another is enough to introduce confounding incentives. So it may be that the only hope for any objective measurement would be those taken at random or without ideas, tooling, or equipment created by a subjective entity (a subjective human). But a tool that measures randomness would itself have no context or birthright of its existence without a founding observer to oversee and complete its creation - again re-introducing partiality.

Can an imperfect being create perfection? Can a finite mind understand the infinite? Can an existence shaped by genetics and a lifetime littered with experiences and thoughts of partiality ever really be impartial? Would additional subjective peoples improve or degrade aims toward impartiality?

This is not to lose hope however or to disavow our comparatively more ‘accurate’ equipment in favor of random measurement or blind theorization. But instead to introduce humlity back into the minds of our deluded experimenters. The intention to be and remain ‘objective’ is noble, but as all humans are, is also flawed. We are contented in our many flaws as beings but seem to think we’ve transcended these imperfections in our creation of mathematics, scientific inquiry and emprirical testing. However, that is folly. And that’s okay. Partiality doesn’t have to be a curse or the end of this dogged pursuit, but it can help us remember more of what we truly are: we don’t know.