On subjectivity and it’s lengths. A question.
There was a time when people attributed the natural phenomenon of thunderstorms to the anger of Gods. There was a time when the land we loved on was thought to be a tower of turtle shells. There was a time when Earth was imaged to be the center of all planets rotation. And those were what was, but more importantly, what will?
An hour and a half before I set off for work, let’s discuss subjectivity, it’s lengths and it’s future while my mind remains dialectical.
First, the mundane definition. When we say an argument is subjective, we refer that no empirical methods can be practiced, but instead all reasoning involved are mere observations and beliefs. Subjective arguments are those impossible to derive a substantial answer from since all notions are personal and cannot be tested.
Through and done with the definition, second, what makes a subjective arguments subjective? These arguments primarily exist in two ways. First, by looking at the nature of the argument, second, it’s depth. And do take note, these are two completely factors it’s essential to fully understand them.
For example, it’s fair to say the persisting dilemma on legalizing abortion and the big bang theory are both subjective questions, but are they subjective in the same way?
On abortion, the dilemma is a subjective as it’s a direct question on the shaping of our morals and perception towards the making of life, therefore the question is philosophical and it’s very nature is subjective. However, the big bang theory is one that deals with the conception of earth from a scientific point of view and for it to be labeled subjective, what it really means is science has yet to yield sufficient lengths in proving our hypothesis true.
The former as demonstrated, is blunt and should be easily understandable, however the latter does not share the similar sentiments. With the bridge of explanation more or less constructed, let’s discuss the first problem, the lengths of subjectivity.
Before I begin, let’s not be mixed up by this and the demarcation problem. The demarcation problem is a study in understanding the boundaries that needs to be drawn between science and non science. In other words, the distance that science needs to stop at in answering philosophical questions. The focus I am posing today is similar in one sense, but not quite, it’s a query as to where the watershed that stands between seemingly subjective questions that’s entirely capable of being objective lies.
In accurately placing the watershed, first we must understand that both in science and philosophy, subjectivity exist in different degrees. In philosophy, answers are often determined by the approach. Think ethics, meta ethics, peta ethics and it’s branch of cousins. But in science, subjectivity is dependent on the viability and reliability of knowledge we have procured in said field. Therefore, how do we know what do we know is no longer subjective?