Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)

Merging the former Objectivity and Subjectivity talk pages here

Not sure if anyone knows how to do that smoothly. Any help would be appreciated. Wolfdog (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Transjectivity, intersubjectivity

Seems like there should be some mention of how ideas like transjectivity and intersubjectivity play into things. I am lacking the expertise to write on this subject I'm afraid. AslanFrench (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bayesian probability gives the source of all knowledge

The modern approach used in AI is that all knowledge about the world arises (in essence) from Bayesian probability. This theory states that you may only update prior probabilities to gain posterior probabilities. This process is repeated as knowledge of the world is refined by experience. One might hope that these probabilities converge towards the truth.

However, for rational agents acting in the world, then starting from different priors may lead to convergence to different truths. The classic example is a negative racist attitude leading to a negative response which confirms the negative opinion. Whereas a positive attitude may elicit a positive response confirming the positive opinion.

So all knowledge about the world is inherently subjective, in the sense that one agent's probabilities may differ from another agent's even if both agents act and calculate optimally.

The word has then lost its original meaning. Sadly, these outdated ideas about objectivity and subjectivity are still being used. A more useful way to define objectivity as relating to the contemplation of objects in the world whereas subjectivity relates to the contemplation of the actions of intelligent agents. In reasoning about objects, logic may be applied. In reasoning about subjects/agents, the agent's motives must be considered. This may be closer to the modern use of these words.

Another use of the word subjectivity relates to qualia and the experience of existence. Such experience is internal to the mind and is subjective. From outside of a person, it is impossible to know if the individual feels pain. Only by inference from our own experience can we argue that other beings feel pain. This "outside" viewpoint may be termed objective, whereas the internal experience of an individual may be thought of as subjective. Consciousness remains a deep mystery.

Thepigdog (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2024

Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy) → Subjectivity and objectivity – It seems weird that the primary topic redirect to a subsection. I would argue that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom—blindlynx 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment what is your argument for it being the primary topic? Both pages have significant pageviews. Per WikiNav, it seems like people are not following the "main articles" section hatnote for the philosophy page, but rather landing where they indeed. Remember, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTS are permitted, so that doesn't automatically make an article with the same title the primary topic. TiggerJay (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The hatnote in the section states that this is the main article with that title. To me that is a clear case for making it the primary topic. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The current redirect goes to a subsection that deals specifically with the terms in a sociological context not a general one, i don't see how that can be the primary topic—blindlynx 13:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

My argument is here that the philosophical one is the primary one per WP:BROADCONCEPT. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If we simply go by BROADCONCEP and HATNOTE, then where does Objectivity (science) fit into that mix, as it is the first listed as main in that redirect AND science is an even broader concept? TiggerJay (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not about subjectivity, so it's irrelevant here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the science one should be the target, but rather, suggesting that neither "boardbroad" nor "main hatnote" automatically makes it the PT. From my understanding philosophy and sociological are related, but also distinct fields. Perhaps "see also" might have been more appropriate versus "main" for the section hat note. Because of that question, what is evidence that the philosophy page is the correct target, versus sociological? TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

We can throw in a note to the philosophy article to the effect of 'an applied version of objectivity is Objectivity_(science)'—blindlynx 18:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Science, WikiProject History, WikiProject Journalism, and WikiProject Sociology have been notified of this discussion. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Subjectivity and objectivity should be a DAB or perhaps a broad concept article, but should not just redirect to just one of the several areas of study in which this is a very important topic. Andrewa (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Editing my !vote to strike out should be a DAB, see below, according to the BCA editing guideline it should not be a DAB. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  My point is that the philosophical article already is the broad concept article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  It could be made into one, but it currently starts out The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. Various understandings of this distinction have evolved through the work of countless philosophers over centuries. One basic distinction is:.... (My emphasis) Support making it into one. But there's a lot of work to do to remove the undue weight it currently gives to philosophy if it is to be a good broad-concept article. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my discussion above. I would support a broad article, but the current proposal is not sufficiently broad to encompass other articles on the topic. TiggerJay (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree that the current article is not sufficiently broad to encompass other articles on the topic. The proposal for a BCA is to broaden its scope. And this seems to be a perfect topic for a BCA... an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics... and later However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. This is from the BCA editing guideline (with my emphasis on not), and appears to fit the case here perfectly. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  As Per Andrewa, I would agree and support a broadly scoped article as a good target for the term. But would be against this article being moved in it's current form. TiggerJay (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support as an improvement without prejudice the expansion of this article or creation of a separate broad concept article. Srnec (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)