Being Objective
It is quite a challenge to objectively assess information. Think about it (objectively) for a moment. What do we mean when we say that we’re being objective? Aren’t we saying, in essence, that we have this hope that our personal experiences and idealogies do not cast a glare upon the incoming information that may prevent an honest assessment and fair conclusions? However much hope we have, our personal experiences and idealogies do manage to creep into this process. Sometimes this is intentional and at other times it happens despite our best efforts. This is so, I believe, because these experiences and idealogies are what constitute or construct our presumptive framework or starting point. We don’t really have nor can we attain the ivory tower Baconian position that allows us to automagically and fairly assess information in a machine-like fashion. This is not to say that we cannot introduce methods that limit or curb the introduction of result-skewing presumptions, but it is by no means the silver bullet.
In the strictest sense can we really be objective? Our very existence is particular and not general. It is defined by experiences. These experiences, private and public, are particular and shape the way we view the world. When we make the being objective claim I think what we are aiming at is one of two things. The first is that we are attempting to suspend our personal way of organizing and processing information based on our personal experiences. The second is that we have some sort of methods that minimize the effects of experience that obscure objectivity. Which one are you?
I know this may sound a bit postmodern, but we all have a particular way of viewing the world. We all have a particular ways of handling and processing information. To presume that we can magically suspend all that we have been through, all that we hope for is sorely misguided. So how do we step outside ourselves when analyzing ideas, concepts and other forms of information? Well, we can’t. This is why being objective is a difficult task. Obviously we can have justifiable reasons for arriving at valid and consistent conclusions. Although it sounds almost impossible we can use reason and evidence to form propositional knowledge. But doubt still remains. This is okay and it is inescapable. Where it really causes problems, as always, is when we run to either pole. We either avoid the possibility of being objective altogether or falsely presume that we are being objective and certain when, in fact, we are neither objective nor certain. Obviously, this does not mean that there is no independent objective reality or that we can’t know it. Far from it. It is simply the case, as always that far too often we delude ourselves into thinking our conclusions are perfectly objective or, on the other side, we give up because there is apparently no hope for objectivity.
Okay, I am the first. I want to attempt to be objective and suspend my personal way of processing information based on my own experiences. Although this is like breaking a very bad habbit. It’s difficult thinking outside the box. (the box being our own experiences) I’m sure it’s possible, but I wonder how different of an opinion we’ll come back with when we’ve thought one way for so long? Can we be so objective that we might really change our viewpoint completely? It is my suspicion that we will always have an inclination to defend our original views, even after we’ve realized there might be better reasons to support a different one. This supporting your statement that we can’t step outside ourselves when analyzing ideas, thoughts and information. Ultimately I think we may always end up holding on a little to the old and a little to the new..
I’m of the inclination that objectivity/subjectivity is not a binary state, but a spectrum. The best we can do is attempt to account for that lack of objectivity (when appropriate).