Dear all,
Thank you for your subjective/objective postings, which have moved my
thinking on lots. This what I currently understand:
1. Objectivity can be described increasing the distance between myself and
the other. There can’t be total objectivity but there can be greater or
less objectivity. In some situations, attempts to increase objectivity can
be helpful for increasing impartiality (e.g. when assessing students) or
validity (e.g. in practitioner research). Such attempts can also help
better decision-making by removing ‘fight or flight’ emotions from a
situation.
2. Objectivity can be increased by means such as marking criteria and blind
double marking. In research it might be increased by clear data trails,
maybe blind double analysing and other means. (What other means are
effective?)
3. There are also spurious and damaging appeals to objectivity.
4. Many means for increasing objectivity are actually about achieving
inter-subjectivity, i.e. involving more than one person. (I also believe it
is possible to be more objective without involving others, e.g. by returning
to the same situation on two or more occasions.)
I am intrigued by Alan’s inclusional logic but don’t understand it. I have a
friend who is waiting for a heart by-pass; at some point the surgeons will
cut him open and replace some arteries. Alan’s posting, ‘there is no
scientific evidence for the localized existence of objective outsides and
insides in a fluid dynamical cosmos’ seems to deny that he has an inside,
to reach which it is necessary to cut through what is on the outside, i.e.
his skin. I guess I am misunderstanding something.
Thanks again and best wishes,
Tim
|