Objectivity

General standards

objectivity

Ontological

the objectivity is what characterizes an object, in opposition to what characterizes a subject. It characterizes what is specific to the object or, more generally, which constitutes an object. That it is with the passive direction of a observation (description of its components), or with the active direction of a objectivation (process of constitution). In the first case one considers an object already made up, in the second an object in the course of constitution.

One usually understands by objectivity of an object it of what consists the reality of this object. One of the most current criteria of objectivity is that of independence with regard to an unspecified knowing subject. Heard with the metaphysical direction of a reality of the object, objectivity is opposed is with what is only appearance, illusion, fiction, that is to say with what is only mental or spiritual, contrary to what is physical or material. Nevertheless, this meaning is neither necessary nor obvious.

In its greater general information, objectivity with the ontological direction rests indeed only on the concepts of invariance and otherness. What we regard as a real object is initially and before a whole invariant. The objects known as empirical or materials are characterized thus by space-time continuity, the intermodality (agreement of the various directions: sight, touch, sense of smell, etc), and some other mechanical properties, chemical or other than the scientists express by laws.

Epistemic

the objectivity characterizes the validity of a knowledge or a representation referring to an object. It depends, on the one hand, of what one understands by object and, other, normative rules specific to the field considered.

In sciences, these rules constitute the scientific methodology, which is specific to each discipline.

Objectivity with the epistemic direction is not synonymous with truth, no matter what the use tends to confuse them. It is more a “confidence index” or of “quality” of knowledge and representations.

Objectivity is not either synonymous with fidelity to the object (precision, exactitude, absence of skew or distortions, etc), although it is about the one of the criteria most usually quoted. Because normative criteria allowing to distinguish what is objective of what is not it are determined, in each field of application of the concept, by the community of the members or the experts of this field.

Since Kant, one defines objectivity as what is valid universally, i.e. for all the spirits, independently of the time and the place, and in opposition to what is worth only for one or for a group. Objectivity is thus opposite with the relativism. Starting from the Years 1960, however, some gave up the requirement of a strict universality while preserving that of a Consensus within the community (scientific, cultural,…), thus delimiting spheres independent of application of the concept. Far from the formal or methodological meaning which marked the period known as neopositivist, one tends today to privilege an intersubjective design clearly .

With regard to his normative base, one can say that epistemic objectivity rests in last authority on the otherness of the object with respect to the subject, like on the rationality of the subjects. This rationality and this otherness, which is expressed for example in terms of resistance or independence with regard to the will, are perhaps to seek side of the action.

Ethical

The objectivity of a subject is related to at the same time epistemic considerations and morals. It is generally expressed in terms of neutrality, impartiality, satisfying, or impersonnality. It is about a catch of distance from the subject with respect to itself to approach the object, being allowed that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive. The objective individual is supposed, at the moment to make an assessment, to give up all that is clean for him (personal ideas, beliefs or preferences) to reach a species of universality, which Thomas Nagel called the “point of view of nowhere”. This utopian design (of “nowhere”) was called in question, especially starting from the Années 1960 and 1970, so much for practical reasons and of principle.

Examples

Sciences of nature

Kant
Ernst Cassirer and the school of Marbourg
the Circle of Vienna and the logical positivism
the thesis kuhnienne of the Incommensurability of the paradigms
the problem of Quantum measurement in Mechanical
the “low” objectivity of Bernard d' Espagnat

Sociology

Gender Studies

Gave Haraway and the “Knowledge located”

Journalism

In the field of the Information and Journalism, objectivity is a Idéal ever reached. Indeed, it depends not only on the way in which the Information S are treated, but also choice of the processed data and relative importance which is attached to them. It is in addition to difficult for the journalist, as any writer, to abstract itself from a certain number of influences related to its medium, its education, its country of origin, etc It supposes moreover a perfect and complete knowledge subject and of all its explanatory parameters, condition which is, most of the time impossible to satisfy in practice.

Esthetic

In painting, to see New Objectivity .

History

Critical of objectivity: it exists T?

Objectivity requires to be able to distinguish an object from the subject observing what is not obvious.

“It is the objectivation which dominates objectivity; objectivity is not that the product of a correct objectivation” will say thus Gaston Bachelard in Études .

Jean Piaget (in Logique and Scientific knowledge ) will advance that “there is no more in right of border between the subject and the object”, because “knowledge (is) related to an action which modifies the object and which thus reaches it only through the transformations introduced by this action”.

Objectivity supposes a subject observing absolutely.

Ce prone preexistent does not need to be objectif.

subject subjectivity

The existence of the Prone and the Subjectivité is itself problematic.

One can wonder how a subject belonging to the Universe, could examine " objectivement" a share of the Universe, or oneself. With this intention, the subject should be extracted (to abstract itself?) universe - and of him even - in order to have an objective point of view. Is that possible?

In practice, to define what is objective, one is obliged to use of artifices: mathematical consensus (the brought together mathematicians agree on a demonstration), scientific method of reproducibility of the experiments by the various experimenters, historical and/or social consensus, agreement of the musicians on a tone.

In a given time, a Objet is recognized then the Relation with the object is defined by the Sujet S in Réunion.

One regards as objective the sum from multiple points of view.

L' objectivity pratique is a Cooptation Synchrone.

Random links: