"Pure objectivity" is a myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

lsayre wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:29 am I diectly engaged this:
Implication: A flat earther, a Christian fundamentalist, a QAnon conspiracy theorist, . . . . they will all point to facts to demonstrate their beliefs. The reason you may not agree with how they interpret those facts or the conclusions they draw from them is because they have a different hypothesis or belief-system that is not being made clear to you. Nothing is to be gained by accusing someone of being "pig headed" or "wilfully ignorant" or "intellectually dishonest" -- unless one can show that they have clear evidence that they are not being honest with their own world-view or belief-system. Someone's working hypothesis might give different weight to certain facts, or different interpretations of them from the one you have. Such disagreements are not signs of dishonesty or stupidity.
The implication here is clearly that one belief system is as good as another. Or in other words, your truth is not my truth...
That isn't what Neil said there at all. Which makes it pretty clear you aren't engaging with Neil, but just going off your reactionary ideals and what you assume Neil is meaning.

At no point anywhere there did Neil say that any belief system is as good as another.

What makes it clearer is your clutching to "truth"... because historians aren't grabbing at "truth." They are creating narratives about the past, which are informed by their backgrounds, biases, and the methodological frameworks they choose to work with. A Marxist analysis of ancient Rome emphasizes the lower and working classes, and expounds on class-conflicts and economic disparity. A capitalist analysis of ancient Rome may focus on Rome's market expansion, the accumulation of wealth, and privatization in the Roman Empire. A Post-Colonialist analysis of ancient Rome would look at how Rome expanded, colonized, exploited, and imperialized other foreign powers and the effects this had on their populace. A Feminist analysis would look at the treatment of women, the structures of male-dominated space they lived in, and how they exercised their autonomy (or were restricted from doing so) in Roman society, or how Roman men and women conceptualized their gendered roles. A Queer analysis would start looking to complicate and discuss the intricacies of ancient Roman gender and how it does not even graft onto modern binary thinking in the same way we do; and would also look at things like homosexuality and how Romans conceptualized that as well.

Each of these analyses is biased and focuses on specific contours of ancient Roman society and helps us to view and document various ways to conceptualize, narrativize, and reconstruct what life in the ancient world was like.

They do not use the same methods as each other. A biographer, a historical journalist, and a traditional historian all use different methods from each other and all with different focuses and results. This isn't a matter of truth, but a matter of historical analysis. And we have a far better time producing coherent and interesting views of history by having diverse methodologies, frameworks, backgrounds, and biases at play, than when we are just acting like Stephan and pearl clutching in between virtue signal posts of "I try to be fair! Fairness is good! Look how manly my objectivity is! You are an idiot for having your ideas!"
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Secret Alias »

Scholarship in this "broad" sense you use it is not "truth" seeking. If you want to seek truth, then you are in the wrong place Stephan, because "truth" is something for epistemologists to discuss.
Another one of these guys. No truth is not merely the domain of a group of specialists. Either you're searching for truth and doing so with a good conscience or you're on another team entirely. If we don't buy into the idea that scholarship seeks after the truth, academia is a waste of time. Scholarship merely becomes a tool of a certain agenda and those who promote 'scholarship' of this kind would in my opinion by rightly ridiculed and thrown outside the city walls. You're either seeing the truth is good faith and objectivity and we can have a meaningful conversation or you're up to no good seeking something other than the truth and there's no point engaging with you. It's as simple as that.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by John T »

Again, what does this tripe by Neil have to do with Christian Text and History?

Does that mean, I am free to give a tit for tat? Can I use this thread to expose the double standard that atheists like Neil feel they are entitled too?

Inquiring minds want to know, Neil not so much. :facepalm:
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Academia is not a time for not seeking "truth" as you seem to think of it (though you have once again failed to define what "truth" even is, meaning you are still just virtue signaling a meaningless term). That something is not absolutely "true" or achieve "truth" does not therefore mean it lacks usefulness. Darwin's theory of Evolution is (in all reality) probably wrong in most of its particulars. That does not mean it was not useful. Newton's theories remain very useful, despite the fact that they are not actually "true" in your sense. In fact, in many cases they are just outright wrong or inaccurate (look up how the orbit of Mercury screwed with Newtonian physics).

And also, this is dependent on the idea that truth and falsity have some rigid walls and that there are not ways in which "falseness" and "truth" can actually overlap or be tangled up. And without defining truth, your whole dichotomy of "your either for truth or against it" nonsense (somebody really loves to virtue signal) cannot even be demonstrated.

Sometimes things can have degrees of truth and falseness. Sometimes things can be more or less true. Sometimes things can be majorly false but contain grains of truth that formulate their basis. Sometimes, it isn't clear if something is true or false at all or whether we could ever tell (String Theory)... or even if the question of "truth or falseness" makes sense in application to them. Again, take a philosophy class. But I guess having "shades" of truth and falsity would drive up against your politically informed agenda. Gotta make sure you stamp out those politically correct "crybabies" trying to cuck manly men from objective truth. That gender neutral language is just going to destroy the fabric of civilization!

I asked you what model of truth you ascribe to. Please tell me what truth even is to begin with... if you can't do that, then you can't have a meaningful conversation about it, and there's no point engaging with you. You're just up to no good, seeking something other than truth. If you cannot define it, you cannot pretend to uphold it.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

Chris Hansen wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:14 am You are an idiot for having your ideas!"
With truth itself being 'subject' to being true or false or anything in-between, it seems that to make the assertion of a statement such as this requires a refutation of truth itself being subject to being true or false or anything in-between. And thus pure objectivity can not be a myth.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

lsayre wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:41 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:14 am You are an idiot for having your ideas!"
With truth itself being 'subject' to being true or false or anything in-between, it seems that to make the assertion of a statement such as this requires a refutation of truth itself being subject to being true or false or anything in-between.
I never said that truth was subjective. I said what we as humans do is not objective. The law is not an objective standard, and neither are academic standards that are used. These are things which have been developed out of specific minds and their personal beliefs, ideas, and backgrounds on matters of philosophy and other issues.

Saying that humans are unobjective and that our tools are subjective in nature, is not saying that there is no "objective truth" or anything similar.

Like SA you also fail to even define "truth" as a concept. What does it even mean for something to be "true"? And how do you *know*? I know that answering both questions undermines you all, because then we can start dissecting your whole idea of truth and reveal its rather subjective origins in your rationale, but without even defining the concept, everything you arguing about is pretty... meaningless.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by John T »

Chris Hansen wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:03 am
You are just incapable of having any discussion without turning reactionary and clutching your pearls between vague and meaningless diatribes meant to virtue signal about how truthful you try to be.
So says the admitted, "Woke Marxist" who implies that all Christian/Republicans are fascist murderers that need to be dealt with, once and for all.

So remind us Chris, just what is your final solution for the Christian/Republican problem?

Should demented Joe send his FBI gestapo and start rounding them up and place them in special camps?
Then what?

Inquiring minds would like to know.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Ken Olson »

trolls.jpeg
trolls.jpeg (147.36 KiB) Viewed 528 times
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by John T »

"We are in the mist today of a very fierce battle. Between the progressives, the socialists, the radicals who want to tear apart our history, tear apart our culture, tear apart our religions, tear apart our families, tear apart our economy. So, we have a fight on your hands. A serious fight. It is a fight for the soul and existence of America." Larry Kudlow, recipient of the Buckley Jr. Award, 2022.

That is why they are here on the Biblical Criticism & History Forum. It is not about learning about Biblical history but to demean it, to denounce it, in an attempt to get you to join their atheist/Marxist movement.

As an American, I believe in the 1st amendment. That being, the best solution for liberal hate speech is to allow them to speak louder and more clearly about what is their true goal. That pointing out and questioning hate speech against facts and wisdom is the best solution, not censorship.

Try posting that on Neil's blog and see what happens.

If pure objectivity is a myth, how does that give license to do evil?

Inquiring minds would like to know. :scratch:
Last edited by John T on Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Secret Alias »

Die perfideste Art einer Sache zu schaden ist, sie absichtlich mit fehlerhaften Gründen verteidigen.
Post Reply