Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Objective

Objective denotes the quality of judgments, perceptions, or realities that remain uninfluenced by personal feelings, biases, or individual perspectives, instead adhering to facts ascertainable through reason and evidence.^[1] In philosophy, it contrasts with subjectivity by emphasizing correspondence to an independent reality, where truths hold irrespective of observers' desires or preconceptions, grounding knowledge in causal structures rather than arbitrary opinion.^[2] This principle underpins rational inquiry, as seen in scientific methodology's reliance on replicable experiments that minimize personal variance to reveal mind-independent patterns.^[3] Central to epistemology and metaphysics, objectivity facilitates distinguishing verifiable claims from mere belief, with achievements including the predictive successes of physics, which presuppose uniform laws operating beyond human whim. Defining characteristics involve detachment from emotional or ideological distortion, enabling causal realism wherein events follow from prior conditions without subjective intervention. Controversies persist over its attainability in domains like ethics—where moral objectivists cite evolved human universals rooted in survival imperatives, against subjectivists' claims of cultural relativity—yet empirical convergence across diverse investigators affirms its robustness against systemic biases in interpretive institutions.^[4] Such debates highlight objectivity's role not as infallible omniscience, but as a disciplined approximation yielding reliable outcomes, as evidenced by technological advancements derived from fact-based modeling rather than consensus alone.

Etymology and Definitions

Historical Linguistic Development

The Latin root of "objective" traces to obiectum, the past participle of obiciō ("to throw before or against"), denoting something presented or opposed to the perceiver, with objectīvus emerging in Medieval Latin by the late 14th century to signify "pertaining to an object" or "considered in relation to its object."^[5] This grammatical and relational connotation initially emphasized opposition or presentation rather than independence from perception, as obiectum implied an external entity confronting the subject without the modern binary of subjective/objective detachment. In Middle French, objectif appeared by the 16th century, retaining the Latin sense of grammatical objectivity—referring to the case of a direct object in syntax—and extending to philosophical notions of external reference, influencing early modern European scholarship.^[5] The term entered English around the 1610s via borrowing from French objectif and directly from Medieval Latin objectīvus, first applied in grammatical contexts to denote "relating to the object of a transitive verb," as in objective case pronouns or complements, aligning with emerging analytical linguistics in works like those of 17th-century grammarians.^[5] This usage persisted into the 18th century, where "objective" primarily described syntactic roles or perceptual targets, without strong connotations of impartiality.^[6] By the early 19th century, philosophical influences—particularly from German idealism, including Kant's Objektivität—shifted the adjectival sense toward "existing independently of the mind" or "impersonal and unbiased," with English attestations of this meaning appearing around 1855, reflecting translations and adaptations in epistemology amid scientific positivism.^[6] The nominal form "objective" as "aim or goal" solidified by 1881, evolving from earlier teleological uses in military and strategic contexts to denote intended endpoints, paralleling broader semantic broadening in industrial and scientific discourse.^[5] These developments marked a transition from relational grammar to epistemic neutrality, driven by Enlightenment empiricism and 19th-century realism, though pre-modern usages lacked the rigorous independence from bias implied today.^[5]

Primary Philosophical and Everyday Meanings

In philosophical usage, "objective" refers to entities, properties, or truths that exist or hold independently of any perceiving subject, conscious awareness, or individual belief systems. This metaphysical sense posits a mind-independent reality, where facts such as the gravitational constant or the atomic structure of hydrogen obtain regardless of human cognition or observation. Philosophers often contrast this with subjectivity, which involves dependence on personal perspectives; for example, the objective reality of an event persists even if no minds apprehend it, whereas subjective experiences like pain are inherently tied to the perceiver.^[7] The term's epistemological dimension underscores knowledge claims validated through methods transcending individual bias, such as empirical testing or logical deduction, rather than mere opinion. Objectivity here demands fidelity to an external world, not reducible to collective agreement, as widespread consensus on a falsehood (e.g., pre-Copernican geocentrism) does not confer objectivity. This distinction avoids conflating intersubjectivity—agreement among observers—with true independence from all minds.^[8]^[7] In everyday parlance, "objective" describes statements, judgments, or approaches grounded in observable evidence and detached from personal emotions, preferences, or prejudices. For instance, reporting a sports score as 3-2 constitutes an objective fact, verifiable by multiple witnesses, whereas praising a team's "heart" introduces subjective interpretation. Standard definitions emphasize this as "dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings," applicable in contexts like decision-making, where objectivity requires weighing data impartially.^[9]^[10]

Philosophical History

Ancient and Medieval Views

Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) articulated an early conception of objective reality through his Theory of Forms, asserting that ultimate truth resides in eternal, immaterial Forms or Ideas that exist independently of the sensible world and human cognition. These Forms represent perfect archetypes—such as Justice or Beauty—known through reason rather than sensory experience, which Plato deemed unreliable due to its variability and susceptibility to illusion.^[7] This framework countered the relativism of Sophists like Protagoras, who claimed "man is the measure of all things," by privileging a mind-independent structure of reality accessible via dialectical inquiry.^[7] Aristotle (384–322 BCE), Plato's student, rejected the Forms' separate existence but maintained objectivity through his doctrine of substances, where each particular entity possesses an essential form or essence immanent in its matter, defining its nature and enabling true predication. Knowledge of these essences, derived from empirical observation and logical analysis, yields objective truths about the world, as in his Metaphysics, where he describes the science of being qua being as investigating unchanging principles underlying changeable phenomena. Aristotle's hylomorphic theory thus grounded objectivity in the causal structure of reality, with truth consisting in the mind's adequation to these real essences.^[11] In medieval philosophy, scholastic thinkers extended these ancient realist foundations amid debates over universals, with realists like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) advocating moderate realism: universals (e.g., "humanity") exist objectively not as separate entities but as intelligible natures rooted in individual substances and abstracted by the intellect. Aquinas integrated Aristotelian essences with Christian theology, arguing in Summa Theologica (c. 1265–1274) that divine creation ensures an objective order mirroring God's intellect, knowable through reason and revelation without reducing truth to subjective mental constructs. This view opposed nascent nominalism, such as that of William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who denied universals' extra-mental reality, treating them as mere names or mental signs; yet realists dominated early scholasticism, emphasizing causal realism in predication and moral law derived from objective human nature.^[12]^[13]

Enlightenment and Modern Developments

During the Enlightenment, philosophers advanced conceptions of objectivity through empiricist frameworks that emphasized sensory experience as the foundation for knowledge independent of individual whim. John Locke, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding published in 1689, distinguished between primary qualities—such as shape, size, solidity, and motion—which he argued exist objectively in bodies and resemble the ideas they produce in the mind, and secondary qualities—like color, taste, and sound—which depend on the perceiver's sensory apparatus and do not correspond directly to external reality.^[14] This distinction aimed to ground objective knowledge in measurable, mind-independent properties observable through empirical investigation, aligning with the era's mechanistic worldview influenced by figures like Robert Boyle.^[15] David Hume extended this empiricism into greater skepticism in his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740) and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), questioning the objective basis of causal relations central to scientific claims of necessity. Hume contended that observations yield only constant conjunctions between events, with no empirical evidence for an inherent necessary connection; instead, belief in causation arises from psychological habit rather than rational insight into objective reality.^[16] This undermined confidence in inductive generalizations as objectively justified, prompting a view where objectivity in knowledge is limited to descriptive impressions without deeper metaphysical warrant.^[17] Immanuel Kant responded to Hume's challenge in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781, revised 1787), synthesizing empiricism and rationalism to secure objectivity within structured human cognition. Kant posited that while things-in-themselves (noumena) remain unknowable, phenomena—the objects of experience—possess objectivity through a priori forms of sensibility (space and time) and categories of understanding (like causality), which universally organize sensory data into coherent, intersubjectively valid knowledge. This transcendental idealism established empirical realism, wherein the phenomenal world is objectively real for knowers, as synthetic a priori judgments enable necessary truths about experience without relying solely on contingent observation.^[18] In the 19th century, objectivity crystallized as an explicit epistemic virtue, particularly in response to idealist expansions of Kant's system and the rise of positivism. Auguste Comte's positivism, outlined in his Course of Positive Philosophy (1830–1842), advocated objective knowledge derived exclusively from observable facts and scientific laws, rejecting metaphysical speculation in favor of verifiable predictions and classifications.^[19] Meanwhile, G.W.F. Hegel reframed objectivity dialectically in works like Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and Science of Logic (1812–1816), viewing it as the realization of absolute spirit through historical processes where subjective thought aligns with objective structures, though this introduced tensions with stricter empiricist standards by incorporating developmental necessity.^[18] These developments intertwined objectivity with disciplined suppression of personal bias, setting the stage for later scientific and methodological refinements while highlighting ongoing debates over its scope beyond sensory verification.^[20] Logical positivism, emerging in the 1920s through the Vienna Circle, refined epistemological objectivity by insisting that meaningful statements must be empirically verifiable or analytically true, thereby excluding metaphysics and prioritizing observable data as the basis for objective knowledge.^[21] This approach aimed to eliminate subjective speculation, grounding claims in sensory evidence and logical structure, though it faced internal challenges since the verification principle itself lacked empirical verification. Karl Popper advanced this framework in 1934 with his falsifiability criterion, arguing that scientific theories gain objectivity not through inductive confirmation, which is inherently fallible, but through exposure to potential refutation via empirical tests.^[22] In The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper emphasized that bold, testable predictions distinguish objective science from pseudoscience, as repeated survival of falsification attempts provides provisional corroboration while maintaining causal accountability to reality.^[23] This shift countered confirmation bias, promoting a critical rationalism where objectivity arises from intersubjective scrutiny and empirical confrontation rather than mere accumulation of supporting instances. W.V.O. Quine's 1951 critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" further refined objectivity by rejecting foundationalist epistemology in favor of a holistic "web of belief," where theories are tested collectively against sensory experience.^[24] Quine's naturalized epistemology, elaborated in 1969, integrated epistemology into empirical science, treating knowledge acquisition as a psychological process amenable to objective study through behavioral data and neural mechanisms, thus dissolving the gap between normative justification and descriptive causation.^[25] This approach preserved objectivity by subordinating abstract norms to verifiable scientific inquiry, avoiding dogmas that insulate beliefs from empirical revision. Edmund Gettier's 1963 cases demonstrated that justified true belief (JTB), a longstanding criterion for knowledge, fails to ensure objectivity due to epistemically accidental true beliefs, prompting refinements like reliabilism, which requires causal reliability in belief-forming processes for genuine justification.^[26] Subsequent developments, such as Alvin Goldman's process reliabilism in the 1970s, emphasized that objective knowledge demands beliefs produced by mechanisms with a high truth ratio across counterfactual scenarios, linking justification to causal efficacy rather than subjective confidence. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions challenged these refinements by introducing paradigms—shared frameworks guiding "normal science"—and arguing that paradigm shifts involve incommensurable worldviews, potentially undermining cumulative objectivity.^[27] Critics, including Popper, contended that Kuhn overstated sociological factors, neglecting how anomalies drive falsification and evidence-based convergence across paradigms, as seen in historical transitions like Newtonian to relativistic physics, where objective metrics (e.g., predictive accuracy) prevail.^[23] Empirical assessments of scientific progress affirm that, despite paradigm disputes, inter-paradigm comparisons via shared data sustain objectivity, countering relativist interpretations often amplified in academic discourse.^[21]

Epistemological Foundations

Independence from Subjective Perception

A central tenet of objectivity in epistemology is that true facts about the world exist independently of any individual's perceptual, cognitive, or emotional states. This independence implies that reality possesses intrinsic properties—such as the mass of an electron or the gravitational constant—which persist unaltered regardless of whether they are perceived, misinterpreted, or ignored by observers. For instance, the trajectory of a projectile follows Newtonian laws under standard conditions on Earth, yielding predictable outcomes irrespective of the observer's cultural background or sensory limitations.^[28] Primary qualities like shape, size, and motion are thus attributed to objects themselves, not to the perceiver's mind, as articulated by John Locke in distinguishing them from secondary qualities like color, which depend on sensory interaction. This mind-independence underpins causal realism, where events and entities operate through causal mechanisms that precede and outlast human perception. Causes, such as the collision of billiard balls producing momentum transfer, generate effects in a manner governed by the world's structure, not by subjective interpretation; altering perceptions (e.g., via illusion or bias) does not alter the causal chain. Empirical evidence for this comes from intersubjective consistency in scientific measurements: thermometers register 100°C for boiling water at sea level across diverse observers, converging on a fact not reducible to collective opinion but reflective of underlying physical necessities. Philosophers like Tyler Burge argue that basic perceptual representations evolve to track such objective features, originating in anti-egocentric capacities that distinguish self from mind-independent environment.^[29] Challenges to this independence often arise from idealist traditions, which contend reality is constructed from perceptions, yet these falter against causal evidence: perceptions themselves require external triggers, as in the retinal stimulation from light reflecting off objects, which cannot be bootstrapped from mind alone without invoking brute mental causation. Verification proceeds via methods isolating subjective variance—controlled experiments minimizing observer effects—yielding laws like Boyle's (PV = k) that hold universally, not parochially. Thus, objectivity's robustness stems from reality's causal autonomy, enabling knowledge that transcends fleeting personal viewpoints.^[30]

Verification and Empirical Criteria

Verification of objective propositions in epistemology centers on empirical methods that prioritize direct observation, controlled experimentation, and replicable outcomes to distinguish facts from conjecture or bias. These processes demand that claims about the world be testable against sensory data accessible to competent observers, thereby grounding knowledge in causal interactions rather than personal conviction or authority. For instance, empirical verification requires protocols where hypotheses predict specific observable phenomena, allowing discrepancies to refute or refine them, as seen in standardized laboratory procedures that yield consistent measurements across trials.^[31] A cornerstone criterion is falsifiability, articulated by Karl Popper in 1934, which posits that genuine objective knowledge claims must be structured to permit empirical disconfirmation; unfalsifiable assertions, such as those insulated from testing, fail as candidates for truth. Popper's demarcation criterion underscores that scientific objectivity emerges not from inductive confirmation, which risks perpetual verification bias, but from bold conjectures surviving rigorous attempts at refutation, as evidenced by historical shifts like the falsification of phlogiston theory through oxygen-based combustion experiments in the late 18th century. This approach aligns with causal realism by linking propositions to verifiable world mechanisms, rejecting ad hoc adjustments that evade scrutiny.^[23] Intersubjective verifiability further bolsters objectivity by requiring that empirical findings achieve convergence among independent investigators under similar conditions, mitigating individual perceptual or cognitive distortions. This is operationalized through peer-reviewed replication studies, where protocols are publicly detailed to enable third-party execution; for example, meta-analyses in physics confirm gravitational constants via datasets from multiple global observatories, yielding agreement within measurement errors of 10^{-14}. Quantification enhances this by converting qualitative observations into numerical scales, reducing ambiguity—such as using spectrometry to measure atomic spectra rather than descriptive analogies—thus facilitating statistical assessment of reliability.^[32]^[33] Empirical criteria also encompass procedural safeguards like randomization and blinding to isolate causal variables from confounders, ensuring results reflect underlying realities rather than experimenter expectations. While institutional biases in academia, such as preference for paradigm-confirming data, can undermine these ideals—as critiqued in replication crises across fields like psychology—the insistence on pre-registered protocols and open data repositories has improved verifiability, with platforms like the Open Science Framework enabling widespread auditing since 2013. Ultimately, these criteria privilege evidence over consensus, demanding that objective status withstand adversarial empirical challenge.^[34]

Role in Knowledge Justification

Objectivity serves as a cornerstone in epistemic justification by requiring that the grounds supporting a belief—whether evidence, reasons, or cognitive processes—correspond to mind-independent reality rather than solely to the subject's internal states or preferences. In externalist accounts, such as reliabilism, justification obtains when a belief arises from a process that objectively tends to produce true beliefs across a range of conditions, with reliability measured by the actual frequency of truth-conduciveness rather than the believer's awareness thereof. This objective metric prevents justification from collapsing into mere subjective confidence, as the process's performance can be assessed through empirical testing or counterfactual analysis, ensuring that warranted beliefs are more likely true than false.^[35]^[36] Such objectivity facilitates intersubjective agreement in justification standards, as multiple observers can verify the same evidential base or process reliability, mitigating biases inherent in individual perspectives. For instance, in perceptual justification, the causal link between an external event—say, a 2023 solar eclipse observed on October 14—and the resulting belief is objectively grounded in the event's occurrence, confirmed by independent instrumentation like telescopes recording verifiable data such as totality duration of up to 4 minutes and 28 seconds in parts of Mexico. This causal realism underscores that justification derives strength from the objective structure of reality's causal chains, not from interpretive overlays.^[37]^[38] In foundational epistemologies, objectivity further anchors basic beliefs, such as those from direct sensory contact, by demanding defeaters be empirically disconfirmed rather than dismissed on subjective grounds. Challenges to this role, like those positing justification as purely coherent within a web of beliefs, risk insulating systems from objective refutation, but proponents argue that ultimate coherence must align with empirical reality to avoid epistemic circularity—evident in cases where internally consistent but empirically false systems, such as pre-Copernican geocentrism justified by Ptolemaic epicycles until Galileo's 1610 telescopic observations of Jupiter's moons, were overturned by objective data. Thus, objectivity enforces a truth-tracking function in justification, privileging causal fidelity over unfalsifiable subjectivity.^[39]^[40]

Applications Across Disciplines

Scientific Objectivity

Scientific objectivity denotes the methodological commitment in scientific inquiry to produce knowledge claims that are independent of personal, social, or cultural biases, grounded instead in empirical evidence, replicable procedures, and intersubjective verification. This ideal emphasizes fidelity to observable phenomena through standardized techniques such as precise measurement, controlled experimentation, and statistical analysis, which reduce reliance on subjective judgment. For instance, the use of instruments like thermometers or spectrometers exemplifies "mechanical objectivity," where data generation is mechanized to minimize human interpretive variability.^[41]^[3] To operationalize objectivity, scientists employ procedural safeguards including peer review, preregistration of hypotheses to prevent data dredging, and replication attempts by independent researchers. Double-blind protocols, as in clinical trials where neither participants nor experimenters know treatment assignments, exemplify efforts to eliminate expectation effects. Falsifiability, as articulated by Karl Popper, further enforces objectivity by requiring theories to be testable and potentially refutable through empirical confrontation. These practices have underpinned successes such as the verification of general relativity via the 1919 Eddington expedition's eclipse observations, which confirmed gravitational lensing predictions across diverse teams.^[42]^[4] Empirical evidence for the efficacy of scientific objectivity lies in the predictive and technological fruits of validated theories, including semiconductor physics enabling modern computing and mRNA vaccine development during the COVID-19 pandemic, which achieved over 90% efficacy in phase III trials against severe outcomes via rigorous, blinded randomized controlled designs. Such advancements demonstrate causal realism: theories accurately model underlying mechanisms, yielding consistent outcomes irrespective of investigators' backgrounds. In physics and chemistry, replication rates exceed 90% for foundational experiments, contrasting with softer fields and underscoring domain-specific robustness.^[43]^[44] Challenges persist, notably the replication crisis in fields like psychology, where a 2015 multi-lab project replicated only 36% of 100 high-profile studies, attributing failures to publication bias favoring positive results, p-hacking, and underpowered samples. Funding dependencies and institutional pressures, including ideological conformity in grant allocations—evident in social sciences where dissenting views on topics like intelligence research face suppression—can introduce systemic distortions. Yet, these issues prompt self-correction through reforms like open data mandates and registered reports, which have increased replication success rates by up to 50% in adopting journals, affirming objectivity's resilience rather than its impossibility. Peer-reviewed meta-analyses confirm that while error rates are nontrivial, cumulative scientific progress aligns with reality's causal structure, as falsified claims are discarded.^[43]^[45]^[46]

Objectivity in Law and Ethics

In legal systems, objectivity manifests through the rule of law, which demands that laws be general, prospective, clear, stable, and impartially applied to constrain arbitrary power and ensure predictability in adjudication.^[47] This framework distinguishes rule-bound governance from discretionary rule by individuals, as legal objectivity operates in degrees via institutional mechanisms like statutory interpretation and precedent, which limit subjective influences on outcomes.^[48] For instance, common law traditions employ stare decisis to bind courts to prior decisions, fostering consistency and reducing variance attributable to judicial temperament, as evidenced in U.S. Supreme Court practices where overruling precedent requires exceptional justification.^[49] Judicial reasoning further pursues objectivity by prioritizing verifiable evidence and logical deduction from enacted rules over personal moral intuitions, though critics argue complete detachment is illusory due to interpretive discretion.^[50] Empirical studies of sentencing, such as those analyzing U.S. federal courts from 1980 to 2000, reveal that guidelines designed for uniformity reduce disparities linked to extralegal factors like race or socioeconomic status, supporting the efficacy of structured objectivity in mitigating bias.^[51] In constitutional adjudication, theorists like Tara Smith contend that an objective legal system evaluates judicial review against fixed principles derived from the law's text and purpose, rather than evolving societal preferences, to preserve systemic integrity.^[52] In ethics, objectivity refers to moral truths existing independently of individual or cultural beliefs, akin to factual propositions verifiable through reason and observation of human nature's requirements for flourishing.^[53] Moral realism posits that statements like "unnecessary cruelty is wrong" hold truth values grounded in objective standards, such as the promotion of rational self-interest and reciprocity, as articulated in Ayn Rand's framework where ethical norms derive from the biological and cognitive facts of human life.^[54] Evidence for this includes cross-cultural convergence on core prohibitions—e.g., against murder and theft—observed in anthropological data from over 60 societies, suggesting innate or rationally derived universals rather than mere convention.^[55] Defenses of ethical objectivity counter relativism by noting that moral disagreements presuppose a shared standard; for example, disputes over slavery's abolition in the 19th century appealed to inherent human rights, not subjective tastes, implying an external benchmark for evaluation.^[56] Philosophers like Russ Shafer-Landau argue that moral realism better explains moral progress, such as the global decline in practices like infanticide since 1800, as discovery of truths rather than shifts in preference, supported by historical records of normative evolution tied to empirical harms.^[57] Relativist alternatives falter empirically, as they cannot coherently condemn atrocities like the Holocaust without privileging one culture's view, underscoring objectivity's necessity for cross-contextual judgment.^[58]

Objectivity in Journalism and Media

Objectivity in journalism entails presenting verifiable facts through transparent methods of verification, minimizing personal bias or opinion to enable audiences to form their own interpretations. This norm emerged in the early 20th century as newspapers sought to distinguish news from editorial content, partly driven by commercial incentives to appeal to broader audiences and reduce partisan affiliations that had dominated 19th-century press. By the mid-20th century, it became a core professional standard, exemplified by guidelines from outlets like The New York Times, emphasizing separation of reporting from advocacy.^[59]^[60]^[61] In practice, objectivity requires journalists to apply consistent empirical criteria, such as sourcing multiple perspectives, cross-verifying claims against primary evidence, and disclosing methodologies, rather than relying on subjective balance that might equate unequal claims. Empirical analyses, including a 2005 study by economists Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, quantified U.S. media bias by tracking think-tank citations in news stories, finding outlets like CNN and The New York Times slanted leftward comparably to Democratic members of Congress, with citation patterns deviating from a neutral midpoint. More recent machine-learning assessments of headlines from 2014 to 2022 across U.S. publications revealed increasing partisan slant, with left-leaning bias predominant in mainstream sources, correlating with audience polarization. These findings underscore systemic ideological skews in legacy media, often unacknowledged due to institutional homogeneity in journalistic hiring and worldview.^[62]^[63]^[64] Challenges to objectivity have intensified with digital fragmentation and advocacy-oriented models, where cable networks like MSNBC and Fox News prioritize ideological alignment over neutral reporting, eroding public trust as measured by Gallup polls showing only 16% of Americans expressing high confidence in media accuracy by 2024. Critics from postmodern perspectives argue inherent subjectivity in story selection undermines pure objectivity, yet causal analysis reveals that deviations—such as disproportionate negative coverage of conservative figures in 2016-2020 election cycles—stem from reporter demographics and echo chambers rather than inevitable human limits. Defenders maintain that rigorous adherence fosters democratic accountability by equipping citizens with unfiltered data for rational deliberation, as evidenced by higher civic engagement in communities exposed to fact-checked local reporting over sensationalized content.^[65]^[66]

Criticisms and Challenges

Relativist and Subjectivist Objections

Relativists challenge epistemological objectivity by asserting that truth, justification, and rationality are inherently relative to specific cultural, social, or paradigmatic frameworks, precluding any absolute or framework-transcendent standards for evaluation. In this view, what counts as knowledge or valid reasoning depends on the epistemic system in operation, rendering inter-framework comparisons impossible or arbitrary. Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm incommensurability, introduced in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), exemplifies this objection: scientific theories within different paradigms employ incompatible languages and criteria, such that objective adjudication between them—such as via shared empirical evidence—fails due to the absence of neutral observational terms. ^[67] Kuhn maintained that scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts driven by persuasive crises rather than cumulative objective verification, implying rationality is local to each paradigm.^[68] Paul Feyerabend amplified this critique in Against Method (1975), rejecting any universal methodology for science and proposing "anything goes" as a principle, where counter-induction and proliferation of theories undermine claims to objective progress. ^[69] Feyerabend argued that historical evidence shows scientific advancement relies on ad hoc adjustments and contextual factors, not invariant rules, thus epistemic norms vary by tradition or individual ingenuity.^[70] These positions, influential in post-1960s philosophy of science, suggest objectivity is an illusion sustained by dominant paradigms, with alternatives dismissed not on evidential grounds but through power dynamics or rhetorical persuasion.^[71] Subjectivists object that knowledge acquisition and justification are inescapably tied to individual mental states and perspectives, rendering objective norms—grounded in external accuracy or intersubjective convergence—unachievable or incoherent. Epistemic subjectivism posits that a belief's warrant derives from its fit with the subject's subjective attitudes, coherence among personal beliefs, or felt conviction, rather than correspondence to mind-independent facts.^[72] This stance draws on the observation that perception involves interpretive filters shaped by prior experiences, emotions, and cognitive biases, such that no "view from nowhere" yields unmediated access to reality.^[73] Proponents argue that attempts to impose objective criteria smuggle in unacknowledged subjective preferences, as even empirical verification presupposes agent-relative reliability standards.^[72] Both relativist and subjectivist critiques converge in denying foundational independence from human contingencies, positing instead that objectivity masks parochial or idiosyncratic standards as universal. Empirical support for these views often cites historical divergences in scientific practices—such as pre-Copernican astronomy versus modern physics—or cross-cultural variations in evidential weighting, though such examples are contested for overlooking convergent predictions across frameworks.^[74] In academic discourse, these objections gained traction amid 20th-century skepticism toward positivist ideals, yet their self-application raises paradoxes: if all epistemic claims are relative or subjective, the objections themselves lack binding force beyond their proponents' contexts.^[75] Postmodern critiques of objectivity posit that purportedly neutral knowledge claims are inherently embedded in linguistic, cultural, and power structures that preclude any transcendent or universal truth. Jean-François Lyotard, in The Postmodern Condition published in 1979, characterized postmodernism as an "incredulity toward metanarratives," arguing that grand unifying theories—such as those underpinning objective science or Enlightenment rationality—serve to legitimize dominant ideologies rather than reflect an independent reality.^[76] Similarly, Michel Foucault's analyses, as in The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969), contended that discourses of objectivity emerge from historical epistemes shaped by relations of power, where "truth" functions as a mechanism of social control rather than empirical correspondence.^[77] Jacques Derrida's deconstructive method further undermined objectivity by revealing binary oppositions (e.g., objective/subjective) as unstable linguistic constructs, suggesting that meaning and knowledge are deferred and contextual, not fixed or verifiable against an external standard.^[76] These arguments extend to epistemology by rejecting the correspondence theory of truth, positing instead that objectivity is a rhetorical fiction sustained by exclusionary practices. For instance, postmodernists critique scientific objectivity as a "view from nowhere" that ignores the situatedness of knowers, drawing on Thomas Kuhn's 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to highlight paradigm shifts as socially driven rather than cumulatively objective progress.^[21] Empirical claims to neutrality are thus reframed as performative acts within specific discourses, with no Archimedean point from which to adjudicate validity independently of interpretive frameworks.^[78] Social constructivist critiques complement and sometimes overlap with postmodernism by emphasizing that knowledge arises from intersubjective agreements within communities, rather than direct apprehension of an objective world. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality (1966) argued that reality is dialectically produced through habitualized social interactions, objectivated into institutions, and internalized as taken-for-granted truths, rendering objectivity a collective artifact rather than a discovery.^[79] In epistemology, this implies that epistemic justification derives from communal negotiation, not empirical criteria alone; for example, constructivists in science studies, building on Kuhn, view facts as stabilized through laboratory practices and social consensus, vulnerable to revision based on shifting alliances rather than unchanging evidence.^[80] Such views challenge traditional objectivity by highlighting how social positions influence what counts as knowledge, as seen in critiques of "strong objectivity" where marginalized perspectives allegedly reveal biases invisible to dominant groups.^[81] However, these frameworks have faced pushback for conflating epistemic fallibility with ontological relativism, potentially undermining causal explanations grounded in reproducible data; for instance, studies in scientific practice show that while social factors influence hypothesis selection, predictive success correlates more reliably with empirical testing than narrative consensus.^[82] Despite this, social constructivism persists in fields like sociology of knowledge, insisting that no inquiry escapes its socio-historical embedding.^[83]

Standpoint and Identity-Based Epistemologies

Standpoint epistemology posits that knowledge production is inherently tied to an individual's or group's social position, asserting that those in marginalized locations possess an epistemic advantage in understanding social realities due to their dual awareness of both dominant and subordinate perspectives.^[84] This view emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s within feminist scholarship, with Sandra Harding formalizing the term in 1986 to describe approaches emphasizing women's experiential knowledge as a corrective to male-dominated scientific paradigms.^[85] Key proponents, including Dorothy Smith and Nancy Hartsock, argued that standpoints are not innate but "achieved" through reflective engagement with oppression, enabling a more comprehensive critique of power structures than afforded to dominant groups.^[86] Extensions to identity-based epistemologies broaden this framework to incorporate intersections of race, class, sexuality, and indigeneity, claiming that epistemic credibility correlates with one's identity markers, such that voices from historically oppressed identities warrant deference in knowledge validation.^[87] For instance, Patricia Hill Collins developed Black feminist standpoint theory in 1990, positing that African American women's experiences yield unique insights into intersecting oppressions, superior for analyzing systemic racism and sexism.^[86] Indigenous standpoint approaches, as articulated by scholars like Aileen Moreton-Robinson in 2013, similarly assert that Aboriginal knowledge systems provide epistemically privileged access to land-based realities obscured by Western colonial frameworks.^[86] These theories challenge traditional objectivity by rejecting the possibility of value-neutral inquiry, arguing instead that all knowledge is perspectival and that privileging marginalized standpoints yields "strong objectivity"—a term Harding used in 1991 to denote reflexivity about one's location as enhancing reliability over feigned impartiality.^[88] Critics contend that standpoint and identity-based epistemologies undermine objective standards by conflating social location with epistemic warrant, lacking empirical substantiation for claims of inherent privilege.^[89] Philosophical analyses highlight a paradox: while purporting to reveal objective truths about power, these theories risk circularity, as the validity of a standpoint depends on accepting its own premises without independent verification, potentially entrenching subjective biases under the guise of critique.^[90] Empirical studies, such as those examining testimonial credibility, find no consistent evidence that marginalized identities confer superior judgment; for example, experiments on deference expectations show that assumptions of epistemic advantage often stem from ideological priors rather than demonstrated accuracy in prediction or analysis.^[91] In fields like sociology, where standpoint theory gained traction amid 1990s postmodern influences, adoption correlates more with institutional incentives favoring identity-focused narratives than with falsifiable tests, reflecting documented left-leaning biases in academic hiring and publication that amplify such views despite their vulnerability to counterexamples—like intra-group disagreements among marginalized scholars undermining claims of unified insight.^[92]^[93] Proponents counter that critiques overlook how dominant epistemologies already embody privileged standpoints, but this defense falters against first-principles scrutiny: causal mechanisms of knowledge acquisition, such as sensory data and logical inference, operate independently of social identity, with historical innovations often arising from diverse, not exclusively marginalized, perspectives.^[94] Thus, while these epistemologies highlight valid concerns about unexamined biases in inquiry, their elevation of identity over evidence erodes universal criteria for truth, fostering deference hierarchies that prioritize narrative congruence with oppression models over replicable findings.^[95]

Defenses and Contemporary Relevance

Empirical and First-Principles Arguments for Objectivity

The predictive successes of mature scientific theories provide empirical grounds for objectivity by demonstrating that descriptions of unobservable entities and mechanisms yield novel, confirmed predictions independent of observers' subjective states. For example, the Standard Model of particle physics accurately forecasted the Higgs boson's properties, leading to its detection at the Large Hadron Collider on July 4, 2012, with a mass of approximately 125 GeV, enabling technologies like medical imaging that function reliably across diverse human contexts. This "no-miracles" argument posits that such explanatory depth and instrumental efficacy would be improbably coincidental if theoretical entities lacked objective existence, as anti-realist instrumentality fails to account for why false theories consistently outperform alternatives in causal prediction.^[96] Empirical surveys of scientists further corroborate this, with studies showing widespread endorsement of realism among practitioners in fields like physics and biology, where intersubjective replication rates exceed 70% for well-designed experiments, contradicting claims of pervasive subjectivity.^[97] From first principles, objectivity follows from the undeniable structure of rational inquiry, where basic propositions—such as the law of non-contradiction (a thing cannot be and not be in the same respect)—hold irrespective of individual belief, enabling consistent causal inference across experiences. Sensory data, while fallible, cohere into patterns that resist solipsistic reduction: repeated interactions yield invariant outcomes, like objects persisting under gravity with acceleration of 9.8 m/s² near Earth's surface, measurable uniformly by independent agents.^[98] This causal realism asserts that mechanisms operate mind-independently, as evidenced by counterfactual robustness—interventions altering antecedents reliably modify consequents, as in randomized controlled trials where treatment effects persist beyond placebo expectations, averaging effect sizes of 0.2-0.5 standard deviations in meta-analyses across biomedicine.^[99] Denying such independence leads to explanatory regress, where subjective constructs fail to predict novel events, whereas objective causal chains, grounded in empirical closure, sustain knowledge accumulation without invoking unfalsifiable observer-dependence. Controlled experimentation underscores causal realism's empirical warrant, as mechanisms like enzymatic reactions in biochemistry proceed at fixed rates (e.g., Michaelis-Menten kinetics with Km values invariant to cultural priors), yielding reproducible yields under standardized conditions that transcend interpretive frameworks. Philosophically, the equivalence principle—that truth tracks states of affairs—implies objective referents, for if propositions covaried merely with belief, discordance would preclude technological convergence, yet global infrastructures like electrical grids operate on shared Ohm's law (V=IR) validations, with resistance values consistent to within 0.1% across laboratories.^[100] These arguments counter subjectivist dilutions by privileging evidence over institutional narratives, noting that while academia exhibits publication biases favoring novel over replicable findings (replication crisis rates ~50% in psychology), core physical laws evade such erosion, affirming reality's causal independence.^[101]

Critiques of Relativism in Practice

Critiques of relativism in practice highlight instances where relativist approaches have hindered effective responses to objective harms, particularly in human rights, ethics, and institutional decision-making. For example, cultural relativism has been invoked to defend practices such as female genital mutilation or honor killings, arguing that external judgments infringe on cultural autonomy, thereby sanctioning violence against individuals under the guise of respect for norms.^[102] This application deflects universal human rights critiques by prioritizing community standards over individual protections, as seen in debates where relativist claims equate Western advocacy with imperialism, impeding interventions against documented abuses like forced marriages or caste-based discrimination.^[103] In 2018, UN experts described such relativism as "destructive," noting it excludes groups from rights protections by subordinating them to cultural justifications, as evidenced in cases where states resist international scrutiny of domestic practices.^[104] In ethical and legal contexts, moral relativism's practical failure manifests in the paradox of tolerance, where it cannot consistently condemn intolerant regimes or actions without adopting an inconsistent absolutist stance. Philosophers argue this leads to an inability to morally distinguish atrocities, such as Nazi eugenics or slavery, from benign differences, as relativism equates all societal morals as equally valid, eroding grounds for ethical intervention.^[105] Historical applications, like cultural defenses in Western courts for crimes committed under imported norms (e.g., invoking tradition for spousal abuse), illustrate how relativism dilutes accountability, allowing perpetrators to evade universal prohibitions against harm.^[106] Empirical observations from legal scholarship show this fosters selective enforcement, where majority cultural views override minority protections, contradicting relativism's own tolerance ideal.^[107] Epistemological relativism in scientific practice undermines consensus on evidence-based conclusions, as seen in sociology of science debates where knowledge claims are treated as paradigm-dependent rather than falsifiable. Critics, including Paul Boghossian, contend this relativizes empirical reliability, permitting "alternative facts" in domains like climate data or medical efficacy, where social constructs override replicable experiments.^[108] For instance, constructivist interpretations have delayed acknowledgments of objective risks, such as in tobacco industry defenses framing health data as culturally contingent, prolonging public harm despite converging evidence from controlled studies.^[82] Such relativism in peer review or policy advising erodes epistemic reliability, as multiple paradigms cannot coexist without privileging causal mechanisms over subjective narratives.^[109] In education, relativist curricula emphasizing equal validity of viewpoints have correlated with increased moral indifference among students, impairing critical judgment. Surveys of U.S. college students reveal widespread endorsement of relativism, associating it with reduced ability to evaluate ethical claims, as in diminished opposition to practices like infanticide when framed culturally.^[110] This manifests in pedagogical failures, where instructors avoid declaring factual errors in history or science to prevent "bias" accusations, fostering vulnerability to misinformation and hindering skill development in discerning evidence hierarchies.^[111] Longitudinal studies link such approaches to lower epistemic standards, with humanities majors showing higher relativist tendencies than STEM peers, correlating with practical outcomes like policy naivety in addressing global threats.^[112]

Objectivity in Emerging Technologies like AI

Artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), strive for objectivity by processing vast datasets to generate predictions or decisions grounded in statistical patterns rather than subjective human judgment. However, empirical analyses reveal persistent biases inherited from training data, which often reflect societal imbalances or curation choices by developers. For instance, a 2022 National Institute of Standards and Technology report categorizes AI biases into systemic (arising from historical inequalities in data sources), statistical (from imbalanced sampling), and human (introduced during model design or labeling).^[113] These biases can undermine objectivity, as seen in facial recognition systems exhibiting higher error rates for darker-skinned individuals due to underrepresented training examples.^[114] Political biases in LLMs provide a stark illustration of objectivity challenges, with multiple studies documenting a left-leaning tilt. A December 2024 MIT analysis of language reward models found consistent optimization toward liberal positions, intensifying in more capable models, based on evaluations of policy stances like gun control and immigration.^[115] Similarly, a 2024 arXiv preprint measured LLMs' responses to political issues, revealing greater similarity to proponent views on liberal topics such as stricter gun regulations, attributing this to training corpora dominated by web content from ideologically skewed sources.^[116] Such findings, corroborated across models from various providers, highlight how unmitigated data reflect institutional biases in academia and media, which prioritize certain narratives, yet developers often underemphasize conservative-leaning discrepancies in public reporting.^[117] Defenses of objectivity in AI emphasize mitigation techniques that enforce alignment with verifiable empirical outcomes over subjective fairness priors. Pre-processing methods rebalance datasets to equalize representation across attributes, while in-processing algorithms incorporate fairness constraints during training, such as adversarial debiasing to minimize protected group correlations.^[118] Post-processing adjusts model outputs, like equalizing prediction thresholds for demographic parity, as demonstrated in hiring algorithms reducing disparate impact by up to 40% in controlled tests.^[119] These approaches, when combined with rigorous auditing—such as differential testing on held-out neutral benchmarks—enable AI to approximate causal realism by prioritizing predictive accuracy on objective metrics like error rates over contested equity definitions. Empirical validation, including cross-validation against real-world causal data, counters relativist critiques by demonstrating that debiased models outperform biased counterparts in generalizability, as evidenced in healthcare AI where bias reduction improved diagnostic equity without sacrificing overall precision.^[120] Ongoing advancements, like federated learning for privacy-preserving diverse data aggregation, further bolster AI's potential as a tool for truth-seeking inference in domains from scientific simulation to policy analysis.^[121]

References

[1]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectivity
[2]
Introduction: the varieties of objectivity - Oxford Academic
Objectivity requires us to stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to scrutiny and judgement. Above all, ...
[3]
Full article: Facts and objectivity in science
Dec 23, 2022 · The goal of this chapter is to present the concepts of fact and fact-based objectivity (as the most intuitive conception of objectivity, among several others) ...
[4]
Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity
I argue that these diverse 'applicable' senses of scientific objectivity have more in common than has thus far been recognized.Missing: peer paper
[5]
Objective - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in the 1610s from Medieval Latin objectivus, meaning "considered in relation to its object," objective evolved to mean "goal" by 1881.
[6]
The words "objective" and "subjective" - English Stack Exchange
Aug 22, 2014 · + -ive. Meaning "impersonal, unbiased" is first found 1855, influenced by German objektiv.
[7]
Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Descartes famously emphasized that subjective reality is better known than objective reality, but knowledge of the objective reality of one's own existence as ...Terminology · Epistemological Issues · Metaphysical Issues · Objectivity in EthicsMissing: sources | Show results with:sources
[8]
Objectivity - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Objectivity is one of the central concepts of metaphysics. Philosophers distinguish between objectivity and agreement.
[9]
OBJECTIVE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
objective implies something tangible and immediately attainable. their objective is to seize the oil fields. goal suggests something attained only by prolonged ...Synonyms of objective · Objective complement · Objective correlative · Subjective
[10]
"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference? - Dictionary.com
Jul 7, 2021 · In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation ...
[11]
Chapter Summary - Oxford University Press
Since truth is objective, our knowledge of true propositions must be about real things. According to Plato, these real things are Forms. Their nature is ...
[12]
Generals: Early Scholastic Realism (Chapter 5)
Dec 18, 2017 · Peirce believed that “there are real generals” (5.503, 1905). By “generals,” he meant what have more frequently been called universals.
[13]
Realism in the Later Middle Ages: an Introduction - Academia.edu
Medieval realism and nominalism are the two major theoretical alternatives concerning the reality of general objects (universals, according to the medieval ...
[14]
Objectivity and Subjectivity Revisited:
Boyle and Locke expressed this position using the language of primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are physically basic. For Boyle and Locke ...
[15]
[PDF] Locke on Qualities - UC Berkeley Philosophy
My contention is that Locke's "primary" qualities are, inter alia, powers (to produce ideas in us) of the first kind; the "secondary"' qualities are powers (to ...
[16]
Can We Know the Causes of Things? David Hume's An Enquiry ...
Hume argues that past experience and memory do not reveal causal relations to us. He also adds that we cannot simply assume that the past will resemble the ...Causation? Prove It · Argument · The Sun Will Rise Tomorrow...
[17]
David Hume: Causality, the Problem of Induction, and ... - ARI Campus
Hume famously argued that we have no rational grounds for our belief in cause and effect, the method of induction or the objectivity of moral judgments.
[18]
Objectivity in Kant, Hegel, and Marx - Aliosha Pittaka Bielenberg
Jan 25, 2021 · In this essay, I briefly sketch the trajectory of the “objective” or “objectivity” in three canonical German philosophers: Kant, Hegel, and Marx.
[19]
Objectivity, Historicity, Taxonomy | Erkenntnis
Apr 20, 2017 · Objectivity emerged as a distinct nineteenth-century “epistemic virtue,” flanked in time by other epistemic virtues. The authors trace the ...Missing: 19th | Show results with:19th
[20]
A HISTORICAL ATLAS OF OBJECTIVITY | Modern Intellectual History
Nov 9, 2009 · Objectivity became intimately intertwined with (the suppression of) subjectivity—yang and yin, in the authors' metaphor—in nineteenth-century ...Missing: 19th | Show results with:19th
[21]
Scientific Objectivity - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 25, 2014 · Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it. Objectivity comes in ...Introduction · Objectivity as Faithfulness to... · Objectivity as Absence of...
[22]
Karl Popper - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Nov 13, 1997 · Popper draws a clear distinction between the logic of falsifiability and its applied methodology. The logic of his theory is utterly simple: a ...Life · Basic Statements, Falsifiability... · Objective Knowledge and The...
[23]
Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science
Popper's falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be ...
[24]
Willard Van Orman Quine - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Apr 9, 2010 · The defence and articulation of Quine's naturalism requires Quinean epistemology, an analogue of traditional epistemology but carried out as a ...
[25]
Willard Van Orman Quine: Philosophy of Science
Quine's epistemological concern is to examine our successful acquisition of scientific theories, while his ontological interests focus on the further logical ...Naturalism · Naturalized Epistemology · Quine's Influence · Quine's Critics
[26]
Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
They function as challenges to the philosophical tradition of defining knowledge of a proposition as justified true belief in that proposition.
[27]
Thomas Kuhn - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 13, 2004 · Kuhn claimed that science guided by one paradigm would be 'incommensurable' with science developed under a different paradigm, by which is meant ...The Concept of a Paradigm · Kuhn's Evolutionary... · Criticism and Influence
[28]
Primary and Secondary Qualities in Early Modern Philosophy
Jun 1, 2022 · The first six (to which solidity and number are sometimes added) are called “primary”; roughly speaking, they are said to be real objective ...Galileo Galilei · René Descartes · Robert Boyle · John Locke
[29]
[PDF] Origins of Objectivity - Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science
My primary aim in this book is to understand and explain origins of representa- tional aspects of mind, particularly in representation of the physical world.
[30]
Introduction: Perception, Causation, and Objectivity - Oxford Academic
It addresses three central questions: 1.What does it mean to conceive of the world as objective? 2. What is the status of causal requirements for the perception ...
[31]
What Is Empirical Research? Definition, Types & Samples for 2025
Empirical research is defined as any study whose conclusions are exclusively derived from concrete, verifiable evidence.
[32]
Intersubjective verifiability - Semantic Scholar
Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), ...Missing: epistemology | Show results with:epistemology<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
[PDF] Truth by Consensus: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation
Mar 30, 2024 · This fact, which we establish theoretically and verify empirically, holds true even if some individuals are compelled to tell the truth, ...
[34]
Future Objectivity Requires Perspective and Forward Combinatorial ...
Jun 17, 2022 · This manuscript contributes to a future definition of objectivity by bringing together recent statements in epistemology and methodology.Introduction · Figure 2 · Conclusion
[35]
Epistemic Justification – Introduction to Philosophy: Epistemology
Epistemic justification provides a crucial “knowledge-contributing link” between a person and a person's believing that a proposition is true.
[36]
[PDF] Knowledge as Subjectively Justified True Belief (SJTB)
Rather, epistemic justification derives from mere correspondence of one's belief to truth, determined by factors or conditions external to the cognizer. This ...
[37]
[PDF] Objectivity and Intersubjectivity in Moral Philosophy - Harvard DASH
objectivity. ... (12) Thus, I am justified in believing MI on the basis of my moral experience. Alston's version of externalism about epistemic justification is ...
[38]
[PDF] Coherentism and the Epistemic Justification of Moral Beliefs: A Case ...
Mar 1, 2012 · possess as much epistemic justification and have as much claim to objectivity as moral judgments grounded on particular ethical theories ...
[39]
[PDF] A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification - DAVID B. ANNIS
for a discussion of objectivity in science and the lack of a theory-neutral observation language. ... ALSTON, WILLIAM, Epistemic Justification: Essays in the ...
[40]
[PDF] Virtue, Evidence, and Epistemic Justification
epistemic justification. The pressing issue to be explored in this ... Objectivity: it is possible for S's belief response to her experience to ...<|separator|>
[41]
[PDF] Scientific Objectivity - Jan Sprenger
Dec 2, 2013 · Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, ...
[42]
Objectivity for the research worker - PMC - PubMed Central
Sep 8, 2021 · We propose a novel way of thinking about objectivity for individual scientists; a negative and dynamic approach.
[43]
The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and ...
Jul 25, 2023 · The 'replication crisis' has introduced a number of considerable challenges, including compromising the public's trust in science15 and ...
[44]
Challenging the Objectivity of Science | Issue 169 - Philosophy Now
It challenges the traditional view that science is purely objective and calls for a more nuanced understanding of how knowledge is constructed. Scientific ...Challenging The Objectivity... · The Traditional View Of... · A Critique Of Empiricism &...Missing: modern | Show results with:modern<|separator|>
[45]
The Alternative Factors Leading to Replication Crisis: Prediction and ...
Mere success in replicating an individual study does not guarantee indisputable conclusions, challenging the benefits of replication.
[46]
Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and ...
Jun 24, 2021 · With this regard, philosophical knowledge can be mobilised to take action in response to the replicability crisis.
[47]
Objectivity and the Rule of Law
What is objectivity? What is the rule of law? Are the operations of legal systems objective? If so, in what ways and to what degrees are they objective?
[48]
[PDF] Objectivity and the Rule of Law
Legal objectivity, in its manifold aspects, is what marks the divide between the rule of law and the rule of men. Because of the constraints on the length of ...
[49]
[PDF] Objectivity in the Law - Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository
Objectivity in the Law. George C. Christiet. Scholarly criticism of judicial decision-making has been abundant and wide-ranging over the past ten years.
[50]
[PDF] The Myth of Objectivity in Legal Research and Writing
First, however, a definition: by objectivity is meant that research and writing about legal matters can be free from value judgments of the writer or ...
[51]
[PDF] Objectivity in Legal Judgment - CORE
We are experiencing a crisis of confidence in the idea of objectivity. In scholarly circles, many are ready to discontinue talk of objectivity.
[52]
Tara Smith, "Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System"
Basically objectivity in a legal system turns on what the system does, what its rules are, what the contents, the substance of its do's and don'ts, you know, ...
[53]
What Is Objective Morality? - Verywell Mind
Dec 17, 2022 · Objective morality is the philosophical idea that right and wrong exist regardless of circumstance or personal experience.
[54]
The Objectivist Ethics - ARI Campus - The Ayn Rand Institute
the standard by which one judges what is good or evil — is man's life, or: that which is required for man's ...<|separator|>
[55]
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 - Philosophy Now
Yes, morality is objective. (By 'morality' I mean that which we all recognise as right behaviour – that which we call 'good').
[56]
C. S. Lewis and 8 Reasons for Believing in Objective Morality
Jan 18, 2019 · 1) Quarreling between two or more individuals. · 2) It's obvious that an objective moral standard exists. · 3) Mistreatment. · 4) Measuring value ...
[57]
There's hope for objective moral standards—but how can we better ...
Jun 2, 2021 · And if it does leave room for them, can it shed light on how human beings might better live up to objective moral standards? In an article in ...
[58]
Moral Relativism and Moral Realism - VoegelinView
Apr 9, 2021 · Moral relativism believes all moral perspectives are equal, while moral realism believes good and evil exist and are not matters of opinion.Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[59]
“Objectivity” in journalism is a tricky concept. What could replace it?
Apr 25, 2024 · Objectivity was in part an attempt to free the news from political influence, although the motive was also economic: as publications turned from ...
[60]
Journalistic Objectivity Evolved the Way It Did for a Reason
not “just the facts.”
[61]
The lost meaning of 'objectivity' - Tom Rosenstiel
Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and ...<|separator|>
[62]
Objectivity and Fairness in Journalism - ThoughtCo
May 1, 2025 · Objectivity means that when covering hard news, reporters don't convey their own feelings, biases or prejudices in their stories.
[63]
[PDF] A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS1 - Columbia University
Abstract: We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular ...
[64]
Study of headlines shows media bias is growing
Jul 13, 2023 · University of Rochester researchers used machine learning to uncover media bias in publications across the political spectrum.
[65]
On the nature of real and perceived bias in the mainstream media
However, there is a growing body of evidence of bias in the media caused by underlying political and socio-economic viewpoints. Previous studies have tried to ...
[66]
Objectivity and the Role of Journalism in Democratic Societies
In doing so, journalism can ensure both that citizens are objectively informed and that the public forum offers them a sphere in which they can effectively ...
[67]
Kuhn's Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense.
This article attempts to develop a rational reconstruction of Kuhn's epistemological relativism which effectively defends it against an influential line of ...
[68]
Kuhn and Feyerabend (Chapter 11) - Theories of Scientific Method
While both Kuhn and Feyerabend have a reputation as anti-methodologists and advocates of epistemological relativism, this is not an entirely accurate assessment ...Missing: arguments | Show results with:arguments
[69]
Relativism in Feyerabend's later writings - ScienceDirect.com
This paper reconstructs Feyerabend's different 'relativisms' in his later writings. · Science in a Free Society remains close to familiar forms of relativism.
[70]
[PDF] A Comparison of Paul K. Feyerabend's and Thomas Kuhn's Notions ...
Both Feyerabend and Kuhn pass from the thesis of incommensurability to a thesis of the relativism of truth. Due to the latter's (Feyerabend's) denial of any ...
[71]
The Relativistic Legacy of Kuhn and Feyerabend. - PhilArchive
Kuhn and Feyerabend espoused views about conceptual change and variation of scientific method that have apparent relativistic implications.Missing: arguments | Show results with:arguments
[72]
[PDF] Objectivism and Subjectivism in Epistemology - PhilArchive
Objectivism in epistemology accepts objective norms and justification based on accuracy, while subjectivism insists on subjective norms and justification based ...
[73]
Toward the integration of objectivity and subjectivity: epistemological ...
Toward the integration of objectivity and subjectivity: epistemological development from 10 to 16 ... 20 of them at age 13, and ended with 18 at age 16. We ...
[74]
Epistemic Relativism - jstor
Epistemic relativism rejects the idea that claims can be assessed from a universally applicable, objective standpoint. It is greatly disdained because it.
[75]
Epistemic relativism and the problem of the criterion - ScienceDirect
In the epistemic sphere, the relativist takes knowledge and justified belief to depend upon the epistemic norms employed in a given culture or local context.
[76]
Postmodernism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 30, 2005 · Postmodernism is a set of critical practices using concepts like difference and hyperreality to destabilize concepts like identity and ...
[77]
Causation and the postmodern critique of objectivity - Sage Journals
According to their critique, facts and realities are socially constructed and politically negotiated, and therefore subjective rather than objective. The ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[78]
Postmodernism and Its Critics - Anthropology
Postmodernism elevates text and language, questions reality, critiques metanarratives, and focuses on power relations, challenging modernist themes.
[79]
https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-2036
[80]
Social Construction Revisited: Epistemology and Scientific Practice*
I argue, however, that one variety of social constructivism, focused on epistemic justification, can be a basis for critical epistemology of scientific practice ...
[81]
[PDF] The epistemology of constructivism - PESA Agora
In rejecting realism, constructivist theories of learning adopt a sceptical position. They reject "the a priori assumption that objective knowledge constitutes.
[82]
Social Character of Science and Its Connection to Epistemic Reliability
Oct 22, 2021 · In a twist of the constructivist critiques of science, it is precisely its social character that makes scientific knowledge more reliable.
[83]
[PDF] Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? What is Truth Again?
Jan 27, 2017 · In this paper, we evaluate two prominent philosophies of science within the field of psychology—post-positivism and social constructionism—that ...Missing: constructivist | Show results with:constructivist<|separator|>
[84]
Feminist Standpoint Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feminist standpoint theorists make three principal claims: (1) Knowledge is socially situated. (2) Marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make ...
[85]
Standpoint theory | Definition, Approaches, & Facts | Britannica
The American feminist theorist Sandra Harding coined the term standpoint theory to categorize epistemologies that emphasize women's knowledge.
[86]
Standpoint Epistemology - New Discourses
Mar 9, 2020 · Standpoint epistemology (or standpoint theory) arose within feminist epistemology in the 1970s and 1980s, reaching something of a zenith in its ...Missing: proponents | Show results with:proponents
[87]
Identity Matters: Standpoint Epistemology with Briana Toole
Oct 31, 2018 · Briana: Standpoint epistemology, roughly speaking, is the view that knowledge is sensitive to features related to a person's social identity. ...
[88]
[PDF] Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is 'Strong Objectivity'
Certainly some of the critics of standpoint theory have done so. 30. “Women's Perspective,” cited in note 26. 31. Bettina Aptheker, Tapestries of Life ...
[89]
[PDF] Standpoint Epistemology and the Epistemology of Deference
Abstract: Standpoint epistemology has been linked with increasing calls for deference to the socially marginalized.Missing: proponents | Show results with:proponents
[90]
Can Standpoint Epistemology Avoid Inconsistency, Circularity, and ...
Feb 18, 2022 · My purpose here, however, is not to evaluate the available empirical evidence that supports the tenet that some (community) standpoints are ...<|separator|>
[91]
[PDF] Credibility and the Standpoint Expectation - Georgetown Law
Empirical evidence also casts doubt on the standpoint expectation. ... standpoint epistemology partly on the grounds that skepticism about testimonial evidence ...
[92]
[PDF] ON THE PARADOX OF STANDPOINT EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE ...
Feminist standpoint epistemologies (FSE) were critiqued in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the interconnected rise to prominence of poststructuralism and ...
[93]
The Bias Paradox in Feminist Standpoint Epistemology
In order to give empirical content to this thesis we have to specify what a socially grounded perspective is and what the relevant alternatives are to which we ...
[94]
Plato's critique of standpoint epistemology: balancing subjectivity ...
May 23, 2024 · This paper contends that the "standpoint" theory's major flaw is its emphasis on individual perspectives, which can lead to a form of relativism ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[95]
Standpoint Epistemology and Epistemic Peerhood: A Defense of ...
Aug 30, 2023 · Standpoint epistemology is committed to the view that some epistemic advantage can be drawn from the position of powerlessness.
[96]
[PDF] Scientific Realism: An Elaboration and A Defence1 - PhilArchive
Thus, the realist concludes, we are creatures who inhabit an objective reality, of which, given our survival, we have the capacity to acquire genuine knowledge.
[97]
Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences ...
Jan 1, 2022 · We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science
[98]
The First Principles of Knowledge - Norman Geisler
First principles, then, are not only indemonstrable but are actually undeniable. That is, they are objectively certain, regardless of the subjective certainty ...
[99]
Bhaskar, Causal Realism, and the Conduct of Causal Inquiry
Oct 24, 2024 · However, Bhaskar's arguments highlight the importance of controlled experiments for generating evidence for causal laws and the prudence, in ...
[100]
The Truth about Objective Truths | Free Inquiry
The first premise is a principle known as the equivalence scheme, according to which truth always covaries with the way things are. For example, the truth about ...
[101]
Scientific realism and empirical confirmation: A puzzle - ScienceDirect
Scientific realism driven by inference to the best explanation (IBE) takes empirically confirmed objects to exist, independent, pace empiricism, of whether ...
[102]
[PDF] Critiquing Cultural Relativism - Digital Commons @ IWU
It is in practice that cultural relativism sanctions the worst mani festations of violence and oppression. Cultural relativism accomplishes this in two ways.
[103]
The Illogic of Cultural Relativism in Global Human Rights Debate
Cultural relativism attempts to deflect human rights–based criticisms by arguing that every community is entitled to respect for its community norms.
[104]
Relativist Claims on Culture Do Not Absolve States from Human ...
Oct 23, 2018 · Cultural relativism ‑ which uses culture to take away rights rather than amplify them ‑ is destructive and the exclusions from rights protection ...
[105]
Top 10 Reasons Why Cultural Moral Relativism Fails - The Life
Top 10 Reasons Why Cultural Moral Relativism Fails · No Difference Between Good & Evil · Difficult to Define and Specify a Culture/Society · Majority Opinion ...
[106]
Jeremiah Keenan | The failures of moral relativism
Oct 7, 2014 · Jeremiah Keenan | The failures of moral relativism. Keen on the Truth | Why do we insist that there are no intrinsically valid morals? By ...
[107]
Anthropologists, Cultural Relativism, and Universal Rights - Sandiego
Cultural relativism, long a key concept in anthropology, asserts that since each culture has its own values and practices, anthropologists should not make value ...
[108]
[PDF] The Case Against Epistemic Relativism: Replies to Rosen and Neta
These thoughtful critiques by Ram Neta and Gideon Rosen give me a welcome opportunity to think these issues through further. It will prove useful to start by.
[109]
Against epistemological relativism - ScienceDirect
The Seven Sexes: A Study in The Sociology of a Phenomenon, or The Replication of Experiments in Physics. Sociology, 9 (1975), pp. 205-224.
[110]
Students Are Moral Relativists: Problem and Solution
Aug 12, 2016 · Many young Americans are moral relativists. As students in elementary and secondary schools, they were taught that there is no moral fact of the matter.
[111]
Why Relativism is the Worst Idea Ever | Blog of the APA
Jul 29, 2021 · By disabling our natural immunity, relativism makes us vulnerable to a whole host of bad ideas (because who's to say that an idea is really bad ...
[112]
College and the “Culture War”: Assessing Higher Education's ...
Unlike moral progressivism, however, the effects on moral relativism are negative, suggesting HASS and STEM majors are significantly more likely than students ...
[113]
[PDF] Towards a Standard for Identifying and Managing Bias in Artificial ...
Mar 15, 2022 · This document identifies three categories of AI bias: systemic, statistical, and human, and describes challenges for mitigating bias.
[114]
Artificial intelligence and bias: Four key challenges | Brookings
Jan 3, 2019 · An additional challenge is that biases can be created within AI systems and then become amplified as the algorithms evolve. By definition, AI ...
[115]
Study: Some language reward models exhibit political bias | MIT News
Dec 10, 2024 · In fact, they found that optimizing reward models consistently showed a left-leaning political bias. And that this bias becomes greater in ...
[116]
Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said ...
Mar 27, 2024 · The result reveals that models exhibit a more liberal bias on political issues by showing more similarity to proponent stances on gun control, ...
[117]
Assessing political bias in large language models
Feb 28, 2025 · The central finding is that LLMs are similarly biased, with low variances in the alignment concerning a specific party. Our findings offer ...
[118]
Bias Mitigation Strategies and Techniques for Classification Tasks
Jun 8, 2023 · Bias mitigation in machine learning models · 1. Pre-processing algorithms · 2. In-processing algorithms · 3. Post-processing algorithms.
[119]
Bias in AI: Examples and 6 Ways to Fix it - Research AIMultiple
Aug 25, 2025 · What we can do about AI bias is to minimize it by testing data and algorithms and developing AI systems with responsible AI principles in mind.What are the types of AI bias? · EU Artificial Intelligence Act · AI Bias implications
[120]
Bias recognition and mitigation strategies in artificial intelligence ...
Mar 11, 2025 · This review examines the origins of bias in healthcare AI, strategies for mitigation, and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders towards achieving fair and ...
[121]
Tackling bias in artificial intelligence (and in humans) - McKinsey
Jun 6, 2019 · 1. Be aware of the contexts in which AI can help correct for bias as well as where there is a high risk that AI could exacerbate bias. · 2.