"Stop liking what I don't like!" - Why is this a thing?

[Darken12]

Peer review and the repeating of an experiment are different things. Peer reviewing is the reading of a paper before it enters into publication, it is a basic quality check, not the confirmation of the truth of the paper, just that is contains no obvious flaws. It isn't even a guarantee against fraud. Repeatability of the experiment comes after (or sometimes at the same time by someone else). You can have teams of ten scientists with millions of dollars of equipment peer-reviewed by one man on his arm-chair.

Objectivism is the philosophical notion that the truth condition you are assessing is in the object you are assessing - i.e. outside your mind. It does not mean that everyone has to agree (someone could just be wrong). As I said one does not need to apply the same to every issue. For instance, if I look at object X and conclude that object X exists and is beautiful I would say that the existence of the object is objective (it exists outside my mind) while the beauty of the object is subjective (the beauty is in my head).

I'm not going to post on a forum asking who else thinks this exists.

Actually no. In theory, peer reviewing involves repeating the experiment before publishing it, to verify the results obtained and the conclusions derived from them. This is rarely done when peer-reviewing for extremely obvious reasons (as you exemplified yourself), but it exists in epistemological theory.

That's not epistemological objectivism. There are many different ideologies and philosophies under the name of "objectivism" that are very disingenuous of you to confuse. For example, moral objectivism states that there are acts that are objectively good and others that are objectively evil (or objectively right and objectively wrong) and is opposed by moral relativism. This is obviously not the same as what we're discussing, and yet they have the same name. Please disambiguate whenever possible.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Schnapps

But, y'know, there *is* Xenonauts.

Kind of off topic, but that would be what you want, right?

 

[wizzy555]

Peer review and the repeating of an experiment are different things. Peer reviewing is the reading of a paper before it enters into publication, it is a basic quality check, not the confirmation of the truth of the paper, just that is contains no obvious flaws. It isn't even a guarantee against fraud. Repeatability of the experiment comes after (or sometimes at the same time by someone else). You can have teams of ten scientists with millions of dollars of equipment peer-reviewed by one man on his arm-chair.

Objectivism is the philosophical notion that the truth condition you are assessing is in the object you are assessing - i.e. outside your mind. It does not mean that everyone has to agree (someone could just be wrong). As I said one does not need to apply the same to every issue. For instance, if I look at object X and conclude that object X exists and is beautiful I would say that the existence of the object is objective (it exists outside my mind) while the beauty of the object is subjective (the beauty is in my head).

I'm not going to post on a forum asking who else thinks this exists.

Actually no. In theory, peer reviewing involves repeating the experiment before publishing it, to verify the results obtained and the conclusions derived from them. This is rarely done when peer-reviewing for extremely obvious reasons (as you exemplified yourself), but it exists in epistemological theory.

That's not epistemological objectivism. There are many different ideologies and philosophies under the name of "objectivism" that are very disingenuous of you to confuse. For example, moral objectivism states that there are acts that are objectively good and others that are objectively evil (or objectively right and objectively wrong) and is opposed by moral relativism. This is obviously not the same as what we're discussing, and yet they have the same name. Please disambiguate whenever possible.

I think you're confused. Yes there are many different philosophical things called objectivism. But unless you're talking about Ayn Rand's personal philosophy they usually all refer to the idea that the truth of something is independent of a mind.

 

[Darken12]

I think you're confused. Yes there are many different philosophical things called objectivism. But unless you're talking about Ayn Rand's personal philosophy they usually all refer to the idea that the truth of something is independent of a mind.

It's really not that simple. Look at this disambiguation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism] page. You have at least three different interpretations of objectivism that are quite different from each other. Ayn Rand's philosophy is not the same as moral objectivism, and moral objectivism is also not the same as philosophical objectivism. Which is also not the same as epistemological objectivism (which wikipedia has as "Objectivity (science)" instead, probably to avoid further confusion).

They are really not the same thing and the vast oversimplification you are engaging in dilutes the actual meaning of these theories and ideologies and strips them of their entire point and reason to exist.

 

[Frankster]

But, y'know, there *is* Xenonauts.

Kind of off topic, but that would be what you want, right?

That looks sweeeeeeeeet. Nope didnt know about it and seems to be what im looking for indeed.
Im actually pondering whether to preorder it on concept alone, but been burnt too many times when it comes to xcom remakes, will have to look around net to see what people are saying about it. Anyhows cheers for bringing it to my attention!

 

[wizzy555]

I think you're confused. Yes there are many different philosophical things called objectivism. But unless you're talking about Ayn Rand's personal philosophy they usually all refer to the idea that the truth of something is independent of a mind.

It's really not that simple. Look at this disambiguation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism] page. You have at least three different interpretations of objectivism that are quite different from each other. Ayn Rand's philosophy is not the same as moral objectivism, and moral objectivism is also not the same as philosophical objectivism. Which is also not the same as epistemological objectivism (which wikipedia has as "Objectivity (science)" instead, probably to avoid further confusion).

They are really not the same thing and the vast oversimplification you are engaging in dilutes the actual meaning of these theories and ideologies and strips them of their entire point and reason to exist.

Yes and if you look at them you will see I am correct. Moral objectivism is the idea that the truth of morality is independent of the mind (this then splits off into different trees), just as philosophical Objectivity is:

Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"?that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject)

I maybe summing up complex ideas in a simple way but that what I am describing is a reasonable description of objectivity means.

 

[Darken12]

I maybe summing up complex ideas in a simple way but that what I am describing is a reasonable description of objectivity means.

You are not "summing up", you are destroying the nuance that makes them separate ideas.

Having said that, I fail to see what your ultimate point is. Nobody is going to whack you in the face for being an objectivist. You are free to pursue whatever philosophy you like the most.

 

[wizzy555]

I maybe summing up complex ideas in a simple way but that what I am describing is a reasonable description of objectivity means.

You are not "summing up", you are destroying the nuance that makes them separate ideas.

Having said that, I fail to see what your ultimate point is. Nobody is going to whack you in the face for being an objectivist. You are free to pursue whatever philosophy you like the most.

My point was your descriptions are naive or just wrong.

 

[Darken12]

My point was your descriptions are naive or just wrong.

So you're being ironic, then, given the title and entire subject of this thread?

How appropriate.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

snippity snip snip snip!

Yah the logical conclusion of this exchange is an agreement to disagree.. but i have nothing better to do....

Sooo.. the existence of math and universal constants (such as the speed of light or vacuum permittivity) would invalidate that argument as the fallibility of the observer is no longer relevant to how data is observed (in addition to the fact that the act of observing itself is no longer trusted with people). Universal constants are mathematically explainable and can form the basis for establishing any new facts.
One cannot subjectively execute mathematical processes without violating the laws of mathematics, therefore peer review is not necessary provided the math has not been subjectively executed and in fact the only purpose of peer review becomes verifying that subjectivity is not present.

 

[Darken12]

snippity snip snip snip!

Yah the logical conclusion of this exchange is an agreement to disagree.. but i have nothing better to do....

Sooo.. the existence of math and universal constants (such as the speed of light or vacuum permittivity) would invalidate that argument as the fallibility of the observer is no longer relevant to how data is observed (in addition to the fact that the act of observing itself is no longer trusted with people). Universal constants are mathematically explainable and can form the basis for establishing any new facts.
One cannot subjectively execute mathematical processes without violating the laws of mathematics, therefore peer review is not necessary provided the math has not been subjectively executed and in fact the only purpose of peer review becomes verifying that subjectivity is not present.

Math is a collection of axioms and rules, all of which are abstract and therefore unobservable. Math does not exist in the real world. It exists purely in our imaginations, even though we use it to measure concrete, observable facts.

Furthermore, constants are nothing but stable events, forces or effects that have been found to yield similar measures repeatedly. The value itself is not an observable fact, but an abstract concept we attach to this event, force or effect.

Peer review does not exist to eliminate subjectivity, because subjectivity is impossible to eliminate. Anyone who has had an epistemology class would understand this. Peer review exists to verify the validity of the methods and logic employed, the solidity of the conclusions and findings, and to try and spot any errors before it goes to print.

 

[FireAza]

Because when the majority of people don't like something, they want this something to not exist so they never ever have to see or deal with it, instead of just ignoring it and getting on with their life. You can this simple-minded attitude at work when people talk about "banning" things. Assuming the thing is question is considered distasteful/harmful, it's not enough for it to be regulated or controlled, these people want it to be like it never existed and no one else can see/use it.

 

[Bertylicious]

Blah blah blah Venom blah blah blah

If you did that at this cafe, I don't think the patrons would mind:

Spoiler

Also, I'm pretty sure that if I hijacked the speakers at my local Costa and started blasting Ride of the Valkyries at full volume or started vociferously singing off key to [Insert latest pop music hate figure here] at a Metal festival it would piss a lot of people off too, so I'm not really sure what you're point is other than inadvertently making some argumentum ad populum gesture.

Actually, that's intersubjectivity at work. You think that blasting music in a cafe would make the experience objectively worse because practically everyone you know would agree with you. But that's not enough. In order for things to be truly objective, everyone must agree, no exceptions. Find one person who finds their experience unchanged (like a deaf person) or improved (like a Venom fan) and it's not objective.

I'm not sure either of you realise just how bad Venom are, which, thinking about it, is probably for the best.

I also don't quite see how being all good natured and accepting of conflicting views actually resolves the question of truth when you have two conflicting ideals, not least when these ideals then have an entire framework of concepts and perceptions of truth then built on top of them. I mean, going back to my earlier example, are we saying that "human rights guy" is right and it is true that humans have inviolate and inalienable rights but that "women are property man" is also right and women, who are humans, also don't have rights and that this is true at the same time?

I'm not a learned fellow but that doesn't seem possible. Surely one position is true or neither?

Wait, is that it? Are we saying that truth is impossible? But then what about that whole "I think therefore I am" malarkey? Surely THAT is true which would mean that truth is possible?

Perhaps I am just failing to grasp what you're both saying.

 

[MetalMagpie]

I guess if you think one creator of art is more talented than another then it annoys you that someone who deserves less credit is getting more of it.

Pretty much this.

It's weirdly annoying when something you think is rubbish is loved by other people (especially when it's a lot of other people). I do know it's silly that I find Twilight annoying simply because it is a "bad book" (according to my personal tastes) that is massively popular, but I can't control the fact I feel like that. However, I can control whether I rant about it.

I think we're all fairly guilty of this. How many people on here have never caught themselves grumbling about the popularity of Justin Bieber or Call of Duty?

Spoiler: The final word from xkcd

 

[Risingblade]

People are stupid selfish twats who believe their opinions are superior. Just like mine are...you filthy peasants

 

[Darken12]

I'm not sure either of you realise just how bad Venom are, which, thinking about it, is probably for the best.

I also don't quite see how being all good natured and accepting of conflicting views actually resolves the question of truth when you have two conflicting ideals, not least when these ideals then have an entire framework of concepts and perceptions of truth then built on top of them. I mean, going back to my earlier example, are we saying that "human rights guy" is right and it is true that humans have inviolate and inalienable rights but that "women are property man" is also right and women, who are humans, also don't have rights and that this is true at the same time?

I'm not a learned fellow but that doesn't seem possible. Surely one position is true or neither?

Wait, is that it? Are we saying that truth is impossible? But then what about that whole "I think therefore I am" malarkey? Surely THAT is true which would mean that truth is possible?

Perhaps I am just failing to grasp what you're both saying.

Actually, what you're missing is that there is no objective truth under subjectivism/relativism. Each person has their own truth, no matter how reprehensible we think they are, and they are all subjectively true for the people who believe them.

The crux of the matter is not which of them is right. The crux of the matter is legislation (who is allowed or forbidden to do what) and legislation must, above all, protect people from harm. In other aspects, it might be swayed by what the majority of the country wants, but in terms of safeguarding people from harm, it must err on the side of the minorities if that's what it takes (which is why we have anti-discrimination laws that only protect a tiny sector of the population, or laws to protect the disabled). Legislation is not about truth, it's a tool that is used for both good and ill (and this gets especially complicated when different people have different conceptions of what "good" is).

The man who says "women are property" is neither right nor wrong. He has an opinion and he will strive to gain legislation to support his views. In an ideal world, he would never succeed, because protecting people from harm (in this case, women) would win over his views (though this has obviously not been the case in history).

He must be opposed not because he's wrong, but because his views are harmful if legislation comes to pass on the matter. This, of course, is the same case with the gay rights vs. religion debate. LGBTQ+ people feel harmed by an absence of legislation that affords them equal rights, while religious people feel that such legislation would harm the concept of marriage and their heteronormative conception of family values. In the end, that debate will only be solved when someone judges which is the greater harm, or one side realises the harm they perceived is not as great as they believe.

In the cases where legislation is not on the table, then it's completely irrelevant what another person thinks and whether you think they're right or not.

 

[wizzy555]

Well that's a fairly consistent utilitarian view, but you are assuming there is an objective answer to the question "Which legislation is least harmful?"