for _pragmatic_ purposes, a careful collective subjectivity and objectivity are more or less the same.


Science is fundamentally refined common sense, but it’s not _shackled_ by common sense either. This is what allows Schroedinger and Heisenberg to be there right along side “what goes up, must come down”, Psychology, chemical compounds, evolution and such.

Mind you, I personally don’t believe that objectivity is the start and finish of things, so your aunt is also correct. Shared subjectivity *is* the closet thing to objective measure that we *can* have., so for _pragmatic_ purposes, a careful collective subjectivity and objectivity are more or less the same.

Yet, like with the sciences and common sense (or a more direct example: mathematics and physics) – there are places they correlate and places they differ.

Sometimes collective subjectivity can be wrong. It may appear objective when it turns out to be collective error.

Yet, what else can we go with? Gotta use something if we want to get stuff done smile emoticon So in my mind, when I hear “objective” my mind substitutes, ‘pragmatic collective subjectivity” and it works out to the same for me.

Do I believe objective reality exists? Sure I do. Do i believe we can measure it? Sure I do. But we’re making the maps of the territories as we’re reading off older maps of the territories. We’re still exploring the territories as we’re continually updating the maps as best we can.

The finger that points to the moon isn’t the moon, but it’s useful, so long as we don’t get *too* caught up on the models and lose sight of what’s around us.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven − 4 =

Leave a Reply