"Pure objectivity" is a myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by StephenGoranson »

L.C./Pete wrote above:
"Everything should be questioned. Our own hypotheses, others' hypotheses and even those which have been long held by practically everyone."
But where, if anywhere, is his questioning of his Constantine hypothesis to be found?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:52 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:37 amA good researcher will be self-aware and make those things explicit. If they are not clear, the critics have a right to ask for those belief systems that led to those interpretations etc.
At the root of history and its interpretation is the evidence. This is mute. The researcher must make the evidence speak by making hypotheses about what the evidence means and how it is to be interpreted. The history of religions demonstrates that the general confidence associated with some hypotheses are at various times raised to absurd levels.

Everything should be questioned. Our own hypotheses, others' hypotheses and even those which have been long held by practically everyone.

"But I have good reason to distrust any historian who has nothing new to say or who produces novelties, either in facts or in interpretations, which I discover to be unreliable. Historians are supposed to be discoverers of truths. No doubt they must turn their research into some sort of story before being called historians. But their stories must be true stories. [...]

History is no epic, history is no novel, history is no propaganda because in these literary genres control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory.

~ Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260

And it's a never-ending quest. The facticity of raw events may not change but how we view them will generally change as we change as a society. One generation may view a war as a glorious adventure and source of national pride, a later generation may see it as a shameless lust for gold, god and glory with barbaric consequences.

The question of Christian origins will be hypothesized from different perspectives, too -- from a Jewish perspective, from a woman's perspective, from a cultural-anthropology perspective, from a class-conflict perspective etc etc etc .... each can offer a different viewpoint and though some hypotheses will be found wanting, many will, along the way, give us new insights into the question.

It's not necessarily a question of any of them being wrong or false, but of broadening our own horizons as we learn about the question.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:50 am L.C./Pete wrote above:
"Everything should be questioned. Our own hypotheses, others' hypotheses and even those which have been long held by practically everyone."
But where, if anywhere, is his questioning of his Constantine hypothesis to be found?
I prefer to keep this about the issue of what we mean by objectivity and its limits in the discussion of competing hypotheses. The OP was an attempt to encourage us to understand that other points of view when it comes to interpreting evidence are not usually about someone being pigheaded but rather about them having another perspective through which they are viewing the data.

That's not a bad way to go, is it?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by StephenGoranson »

As mentioned before, some views are more objective than others. A view deflected by you while lecturing?
I say, e.g., today where I am (evidence is available) it is raining. That is more objective than many claims made here that I could mention.
Some views are indeed mistaken.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:10 am As mentioned before, some views are more objective than others. A view deflected by you while lecturing?
I say, e.g., today where I am (evidence is available) it is raining. That is more objective than many claims made here that I could mention.
Some views are indeed mistaken.
Some views are mistaken, but the claim "today where I am it is raining" is not in and of itself objective. In fact, it is a claim rooted in your subjective observation of the world.

I keep seeing claims that "some views are more objective than others" and I've yet to actually see any methodical or descriptive way we can determine what is or is not more or less objective. Simply giving an example of you making a claim about the what is physically happening in the world is not the same as being objective.
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 2:00 am If objectivity doesn't exist, then the objective standard of blind justice and an equal application and upholding of the law (to all) is impossible. And only subjective law would remain. Law that is applicable differently (and applied at the level of not at all to brutally) to different groups and classes and identities and circumstances. Law that is the antithesis of being blind and equal to all. Law that is insane. The sort of law that stands down (on order) while businesses are looted and burned and entire city blocks are destroyed or declared to be a new nation, but sends a group of people who walk unarmed through their Capital for a couple hours to an oppressive gulag with no right to a speedy trial or any basic rights at all. We have witnessed what the world will be like when objectivity is declared to be impossible, and all that remains is subjectivity.
Okay, I'm going to dissect this because none of this made sense.

Firstly, the "standard" of "blind justice and an equal application and upholding of the law" is not some inherently objective standard. It is a cultural idea primarily invented by a handful of (white) elitist men, who were reacting to the widely perceived injustices of other European systems of law at the time. And in application, the "blind" and "equal" part has never actually been practiced. Black men are more likely to get greater sentences for the same crimes as White men in the United States, which supposedly upholds these ideals. Women have been habitually denied equal access to protections like men (just recently the Supreme Court of the USA decided to take away their ability to control their bodies). Justice has never been blind, and the idea of it "being blind" was never more than unachievable, because justice and its enacting has always been at the behest of biased human beings. Law and justice have always been subjective both in application and upholding. Everything is dependent on the biases of a jury, a judge, the police, etc. All of whom have been shown to have historically racist, sexist, and anti-LGBTQ+ tendencies throughout the nation of the USA... among other nations I could easily mention. The "standard" for this kind of law was made by biased White men a few hundred years ago. If you think it is "objective" as a standard, then I think you don't know how it came about or who made it. In the United States, this conception of law became upheld by the same men who thought the 3/5's compromise was acceptable, and who also owned slaves, who were not considered people deserving of equal protection under the law. And at the time of its making, neither were women for that matter either. Law and its application have always been subjective. If you want a case in point, just ask Judge Cannon and their irrational and hokum abuse of the law to attempt to protect Donald Trump from criminal investigation. Like you think the law is objective? I'm sure the principal drafter and writer of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution James Madison was definitely objective in how he conceptualized equality, while owning close to 100 slaves. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson definitely was objective in his consideration of "all men are created equal"... while he owned slaves and r*p*d one of them by which there are descendants to this day. I'm sure the standards they set were very "objective". "Equal" did not mean what it does now. Standards change.

Given this, secondly, it therefore does not follow this law is "insane" or anything. Subjective law is what has always dominated our lands, and has continued to do so. A malleable process of governance meant to alter with the times and country. As it always has. The law is not static and objective. Standards change with time.
We have witnessed what the world will be like when objectivity is declared to be impossible, and all that remains is subjectivity.
Yeah, it looks like it always has. The idea of "Objective law" has never stopped any of those things you talk about. The law is a subjective tool, applied with the discretion of biased judges, juries, and law enforcement, which often targets, denigrates and attacks minorities. Equal protections under the law as a standard has never been an objective idea. In reality, it at first meant white-cis-het-men. People of Color, women, queer people, immigrants, etc. were never given the equal protections because it was never designed to extend to them at first. The "standard" was never objective to begin with.

And controversial, but everything you listed is what I consider good civil duty at work. When the system of law fails, when justice fails, when the police are utilized as a weapon against protesters, then riots and violence against the state are, in my opinion, moral necessities for restoring it. And curiously enough, I'm sure that the people who set up the United States' (supposed) "standard" of equal protections under the law would agree, given that those same men led a rebellion against their own nation. When those who uphold the law refuse to be held accountable, they must be pressured and face consequences.

Also, most of the "riots" and such you describe were provoked by police... in virtually all instances. In the USA, the police are an antagonistic force that, according to our Supreme Court, is not even required to protect us. They antagonize and harass people, are habitually corrupt, and commit mass violence with no serious repercussions 99% of the time. In most cases of riots during the George Floyd Protests, for instance, the police were more often than not the violent instigators. And in areas where the police did not violently suppress people, protests remained largely peaceful. So... maybe the problem is the law and its enforcement, not the people. I mean, these riots started in the first place because of police brutality and murder of a man who... allegedly used a counterfeit dollar bill (George Floyd). And then also shot and killed an innocent woman in her apartment (Breonna Taylor). And when they moved to arrest and then shot and murdered a man for sleeping in a Wendy's Parking Lot (Rayshard Brooks).

We have seen what subjectivity in the law looks like. It looks like it has always looked like. And pretending it has an "objective standard" just isn't true. The law, its writing, and its application have always been matters of human subjectivity. For as long as humanity has existed, the law has always been subjective both in its formulation and in its application. The ideal of "Equal Protections" didn't mean back then what it does now, and how laws are interpreted and enacted by judges, juries, and law enforcement has been up to various levels of personal discretion.

And the idea that the law was "meant" to be objective seems shoddy at best. The realization that we need tools to alter the law, dismiss old laws, or reinterpret those we have seems a clear indication that we at least tacitly acknowledge that the law is not only subjective, but also has the ability to become outdated and that it is limited to the perceptions, classes, and understandings of its own time. It is odd to me that those who uphold this "objective" understanding of law tend to also be the ones who make the way for authoritarianism and the state control of people's bodily autonomy. Let us turn back to Roe v. Wade and how the same people restricting people's access to abortion are the same people fighting and arguing that "postmodern neo-Marxists" and "Social Justice Warriors" and "Critical Race Theorists" are trying to destroy objective truth and law...

And LASTLY:

This is all completely irrelevant to Neil's point about how we gain knowledge of the world and reconstruct the past as historians. The reconstructing of the past is not an objective process. It is a subjective process as Neil described. I will not be responding to anything more about legal objectivity or anything like that. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The fact that you go on to cite Ayn Rand of all people kinda just shows you are reactionary and not actually trying to engage with what Neil is actually saying. Neil never once advocated against the idea of objectivity in law. So this is just absurdist argumentation on your part.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

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...
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Secret Alias »

The Arabic expression the enemy of my enemy is my friend CAN NOT be applicable in the pursuit of truth. This is scholarship. Scholarship is truth-seeking not clandestine guerilla warfare. Neil's protection an overtly dishonest person who denies that Dura Europos's 3rd century gospel fragment is a third century gospel fragment, that Dura Europos 3rd century church is a third century church and that this evidence makes a fourth century conspiracy untenable. There is no excuse for this sort of 'tactical' allegiance with a liar. Lies are lies. Truth seeking is truth seeking. There can be middle ground of allegiance with an overtly dishonest person like Pete the mountainman.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

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. You coming in here virtue signaling about "truth" doesn't mean anything. You can't even clearly define what objectivity or truth even are... Nothing you say is meaningful. It is just buzzwords and political ranting. Gonna say something about "politically correct crybabies" next or rant about pronouns and Gender Neutral language?

Scientists have long known that what they do is not "seek truth" but hypothesize about how reality functions according to the limitations, biases, and abilities that we can. Hence, scientific theories have consistently changed, consistently been altered and revised, etc. and there aren't really these overarching guiding principles that all scientists or historians use... they are highly variant, and they are all subject to criticism. If there is anything that can be learned by reading the great content on Vridar, it is that historical methodology is malleably used and very open to criticism.

Historians don't find the truth. They assemble reconstructions which approximate what they think life was like, or what events transpired, etc. about the past. These reconstructions are not "truth." They are narratives made by humans, which approximate what an individual (or individuals) scholar thinks happened, limited by their biases, what methods they've chosen to employ, by what they observe, by their knowledge base, and by their specialization, training, and background. And none of these things is governed by some magical "objective" dictate. A capitalist/liberal academic will see the economic history of Britain and create a narrative vastly different from that of an Anarchist, who will make one vastly different than that of a Classical Marxist, who will make one vastly different to that of a Fascist, who will make one vastly different to that of a Stalinist.

Neil is not aligning with Pete by saying any of this, nor is Neil siding with mythicists, nor are either of these even relevant to the topic at hand. 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.
Post Reply