Wednesday 4 May 2016

The Use and Abuse of 'Objectivity'.


My comment to an excellent post published by Humberto Mariotti - Big data: one more illusion (a second look) - was whether it's time to remove 'objectivity' from the English language, or at least redefine it.  Humberto suggested I might like to write a post on my proposal.  Well here it is!

Let's start with a definition of objectivity from macmillandictionary.com:

"A state or situation in which something is based only on facts and evidence."

"....facts and evidence" are, in my opinion, the two nouns that belittle the definition, because both are based on perception.  OK, so let's amend it to "....perceived facts and evidence".  Not sensible, I'm afraid, unless we personalise 'objectivity' to the observer's perception, in which case, by definition, 'objectivity' becomes 'subjectivity'.

Here in the UK, we are being bombarded daily with 'facts and evidence' to encourage us either to vote to stay in the European Union (EU) or conversely, to exit from the EU.  Often the same 'fact' is used to support the two different arguments!  So for example, the UK's net contribution to the EU budget of €7.3bn (a 'fact' that is also disputed!) is seen to the 'remain' group as an 'investment' but to the 'exit' group as a 'cost'.  Numbers might be considered to be as factual as you can get but the way numbers are presented and interpreted is bound to be subjective.

There is a fallacy (in my opinion!) that the aspiration for objectivity can be achieved by obtaining a consensus of opinions and this is an argument used by some for trial by jury.  Richard Dawkins pours scorn on this argument in his essay on the subject, which he concludes as follows:

"If I know myself to be guilty, I'll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better.  But if I am innocent [....] please give me a judge."

His disparaging opinion of trial by jury results from his view that the twelve assessments of the jury members locked in a jury room are unlikely to be independent.  Their views can be massively swayed by one or two vocal individuals.  So why should a jury be more 'objective' than a judge?'

Returning to the title - The Use and Abuse of 'Objectivity' - I believe the noun 'objectivity' does have a meaning where it is used to express an aspiration.  We all strive to establish the 'truth' of the world in which we exist and as I have written before, our perceptions are formed by aggregating different perspectives throughout our lives.  We might see our personal subjectivities as objectivities - perception is reality - but the real objective truth, whilst existing, will never be discovered or confirmed by mere homo sapiens.

I can live with that!