"Pure objectivity" is a myth

[neilgodfrey]

It's really very simple. Everything we learn and know comes to us through learning, reading. We process what we experience and interpret what we read.

Truth is the best we can try to understand from within the confines of our learning, experience, etc.... it does not come to us from God. Nor can we ever escape our experiences and reach God/The Truth as an Absolute.

That's really basic 101 in all works discussing historical research that I have read.

Sure there are facts. But facts need to be interpreted to tell a story. And there are many stories for the above reasons.

Tolerance, understanding, is the way forward. Not knee-jerk rejection of the fundamentals of how we come to know what we know.

[neilgodfrey]

who would have thought a thread attempting to set out the fundamentals for tolerance and understanding for different perspectives in historical research should provoke such intolerance and closed-mindedness....

[neilgodfrey]

It is right and proper that postmodernist theorists and critics should force historians to rethink the categories and assumptions with which they work and to justify the manner in which they prac­tice their discipline. But postmodernism is itself one theory, one approach among many, and as contestable as all the rest. For my own part, I remain optimistic that objective historical knowledge is both desirable and attainable. So when Patrick Joyce tells us that social his­tory is dead, and Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth declares that time is a fictional construct, and Roland Barthes announces that all the world's a text, and Frank Ankersmit swears that we can never know anything at all about the past so we might as well confine ourselves to study­ing other historians, and Keith Jenkins proclaims that all history is just naked ideology designed to get historians power and money in big university institutions run by the bourgeoisie, I will look humbly at the past and say, despite them all: It really happened, and we real­ly can, if we are very scrupulous and careful and self-critical, find out how it did and reach some tenable conclusions about what it all meant.

• Evans, Richard J. In Defence of History. London: W. W. Norton, 1997. p. 220

Discuss

[lsayre]

I find this to have appropriateness as to objectivism's relevance as an aid to uncovering past history:

Objectivism is the notion that an objective reality exists and can be increasingly known through the accumulation of more complete information. Objectivism is thus an ontology (the world exists, is real), and an epistemology (knowledge can increasingly approximate the real nature, or quality, of its object -- that is, knowledge can become increasingly objective). Objectivist epistemology presupposes an objectivist ontology -- in order to objectively know the world, there must be a real objective, definite world.

Carl Ratner, PhD. Cultural Psychologist, and Director of the Institute for Cultural Research and Education.

This fits quite well with my earlier quote detailing objectivism, (I.E., within my post also detailing subjectivism and intrinsicism, the very post for which Neil admittedly could not tolerate reading it long enough whereby to even get to and thereby actually read this part of it, which rather surprisingly leads to his subsequent [perhaps preconceived] revulsion against it) which I thereby duly re-post here both for his benefit and for the benefit of all:

Objectivism holds that truth and falsehood are aspects of conceptual knowledge. Truth (and perceptual knowledge) is a relationship between a consciousness and reality. Truth is reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of logic.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, only when there is a radical difference in the relevant perceptual evidence available to the two people. It does not depend on mental choices, subjective processing, emotions, or whims. (2) A statement can also be arbitrary for one person and either true or false for another: People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)

If such as these quotes clearly outline the position of pure objectivism, I fail to see "myth" inherent within utilizing them as guides in the pursuit of uncovering factual history. Let alone cultism.

[Paul the Uncertain]

If such as these quotes clearly outline the position of pure objectivism, I fail to see "myth" inherent within utilizing them as guides in the pursuit of uncovering factual history. Let alone cultism.

How does that position reconcile (if it does) with a conception of history such as Evans's quoted earlier?

It [the past] really happened, and we real­ly can, if we are very scrupulous and careful and self-critical, find out how it did and reach some tenable conclusions about what it all meant.

"It really happened" seems as blunt a statement of ontological objectivity as one could wish. No purity myths there.

Where the fog rolls in, in my view, is the equally blunt recitation of personal qualities as the prerequisite for knowledge attainment (very scrupulous, careful, self-critical). Really? Eusebius displays none of those virtues and Josephus does so at best sporadically, and yet I have considerable confidence that Pilate served in Judea throughout the last decade of Tiberius's reign, more-or-less entirely on Eusebius's and Josephus's say-so. I could be wrong about that term in office, but I am not alone in my estimate of how this bit of the past happened nor the basis for estimating it.

Conversely, how would being a better person (more scrupulous, more careful, more self-critical) allow anybody now living to determine whether Abel Blood, Jr. was born in 1791 (as official records state) or 1796 (as his tombstobe implies and two census self-report records support)? In contrast, more evidence if such were to emerge could align the beliefs of even the sloppiest, most negligent, and fatuously self-absorbed investigator with the objective truth of Abel's birth.

Somewhere in that paragraph is a further notion of "objectivity," that opinion about ground facts can and ought to follow available evidence. Personal qualities may affect how well a given individual might perform in achieving the norm (as would be the case with any norm), but the merits of the epsitemic prescription to follow the evidence stand apart from the personalities of those who would implement it.

Finally in the Evans teaching is the notion of arriving at "tenable conclusions about what it all meant." Apprehending meaning is an inherently subjective enterpise. I breathlessly await the first shred of evidence that academic historians in their professional capacities have superior qualifications to poets, novelists, playwrights, ... in discerning the meaning of undisputed facts.

And when the facts are disputed, then even a shared subjective apprehension of their meaning awaits the resolution of the factual dispute. Whether that resolution turns out to be of objective character (new evidence emerges or existing evidence comes to the attention of more disputants) or subjective character varies from case to case.

On a point arising: capital-L Libertarian in the United States is the name of a small political party and is also used to refer to its members. Small-l libertarian refers to an attitude about social organization. I am unable to judge the extent to which big-L's are also small-l's. On a personal level, I am a devoted libertarian who isn't now and never has been a Libertarian.

Ayn Rand is a famous small-l libertarian, but the capital-L political party only came to exist late in her life span. While Rand still enjoys a considerable small-l libertarian following, she is not uniformly admired among libertarians.

[lsayre]

I agree that only some unknown minority percentage of Libertarians (capital-L) are at present also still attempting to consider themselves to be Objectivists (capital-O). As Ayn Rand put it before her death, Libertarians at large seem to accept many of the philosophical conclusions which have evolved from an application of Objectivist Philosophy, while ignoring, rejecting, and/or outright denying the Objectivist's means used whereby to logically come to such conclusions. This later (and larger) Objectivist Philosophy denying faction of Libertarians (capital-L) is generally more left leaning and "anything goes" types, who are often also outright anarchists. These "anything goes" usurpers running amok are the reason why Objectivists (capital-O) have formally dissociated themselves from free and voluntary (and/or formalized and contractual) association with the Libertarian (capital 'L') Party. Effectively the 'O's' are waiting for the 'L's' to clean their house. Objectivists (capital-O) have no formal political party leanings or associations or participatory involvement in politics. Interestingly enough however is the well known fact that Ayn Rand herself always claimed to have voted exclusively Democrat.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Ayn Rand voted Democrat while living off of tax payer dollars and social security. She received medicare and social security benefits under the name Ann O'Connor (her husband's last name). So... you know, I guess that whole devotion to laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism only went as far as her books, because in real life she didn't reject the benefits of non-capitalist social security nets. Probably why she voted Democrat... you know... the party that was not laissez-faire capitalist.

I've personally always found Hitchens' statement on Libertarians and their ilk quite nice:

“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

Anyways, we are so off topic. Glad to see that Isayre cannot actually grasp the point of this thread even remotely.

[lsayre]

Ayn Rand voted Democrat while living off of tax payer dollars and social security. She received medicare and social security benefits under the name Ann O'Connor (her husband's last name). So... you know, I guess that whole devotion to laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism only went as far as her books, because in real life she didn't reject the benefits of non-capitalist social security nets. Probably why she voted Democrat... you know... the party that was not laissez-faire capitalist.

Ron Paul is collecting SS benefits and utilizing Medicare also. As for many of us, with all he's paid into the entirety of the government system, he will not likely ever get that much back out of it.

“Just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system, but that doesn’t mean you can’t work to remove this in the same way on Social Security,” he said. "

Ron Paul

[Chrissy Hansen]

Which also makes him a hypocrite as well.

Citing more hypocrites to defend another one, is not exactly a winning strategy.

[neilgodfrey]

. . .
This fits quite well with my earlier quote detailing objectivism, (I.E., within my post also detailing subjectivism and intrinsicism, the very post for which Neil admittedly could not tolerate reading it long enough whereby to even get to and thereby actually read this part of it, which rather surprisingly leads to his subsequent [perhaps preconceived] revulsion against it) which I thereby duly re-post here both for his benefit and for the benefit of all:

Objectivism holds that truth and falsehood are aspects of conceptual knowledge. Truth (and perceptual knowledge) is a relationship between a consciousness and reality. Truth is reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of logic.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, only when there is a radical difference in the relevant perceptual evidence available to the two people. It does not depend on mental choices, subjective processing, emotions, or whims. (2) A statement can also be arbitrary for one person and either true or false for another: People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)

If such as these quotes clearly outline the position of pure objectivism, I fail to see "myth" inherent within utilizing them as guides in the pursuit of uncovering factual history. Let alone cultism.

I simply don't see the practical relevance of your quote for how a historian determines what is, say, a fact about the past, and how a historian connects facts to create a narrative.

The processes are not really complicated.

And you seem to be once again ignoring what I have actually said about cult-thinking. It is not something for dummies. I reject the popular notions of cults. I think I have cited serious studies on the phenomenon across religious and political and other groups. I tried to present some "objective" data that identifies what we are talking about.

Your quotation that my eyes glazed over seemed to be saying simple things in an unnecessarily complex wordy way. I have to wonder if the reason you quote it again here is because you cannot explain it in your own words, meaning you may not fully understand it yourself.

Let me zero in on one point I find problematic:

For an Objectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, only when there is a radical difference in the relevant perceptual evidence available to the two people. It does not depend on mental choices, subjective processing, emotions, or whims.

Do you really agree with that statement? A dog can run towards two people. One person interprets the motions of the dog as friendly and bends down to hug it. The other person interprets the motions of the dog as threatening and runs away in fear. That's a real life example. What is the difference between the two? Subjective processing of the same evidence.

Here's another one for the historically minded. Americans interpreted the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor as an act of perfidy. Japanese interpreted it as an act of desperation for the sake of survival. Same data available to all. But Americans and Japanese had different subjective views of the relevance of different evidence such as America's cutting off Japanese oil.

Or a more contemporary one: The "West" says Russia's attack on Ukraine was unprovoked. Russia says it was provoked. What one country says was a provocation the other says was not a provocation -- same evidence, different subjective evaluations of the evidence.

I should add that I am not a moral relativist, by the way. I do not think that one person's view is "as good as any other's". Not at all. But that's the next step in the discussion -- if we get there.