Difference Between Objective and Subjective
Subjective vs Objective
In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
When to Be Objective and Subjective
Objective : it is important to be objective when you are making any kind of a rational decision. It might involve purchasing something or deciding which job offer to take. You should also be objective when you are reading, especially news sources. Being objective when you are meeting and having discussions with new people helps you to keep your concentration focused on your goal, rather than on any emotions your meeting might trigger.
Subjective : can be used when nothing tangible is at stake. When you are watching a movie or reading a book for pleasure, being subjective and getting caught up in the world of the characters makes your experience more enjoyable. If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective.
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.
Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
(122 votes, average: 4.55 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
Thanks for your input. You were soft and well said in a pragmatic way. Subjective is more people skills. Yes, I can absolutely agree! However, the objective is not necessarily negative. Objective is to report accuracy and truth in the same expression without bias. “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day” is an objective statement
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#ixzz1j1LQbBRB
Wow. All I wanted to know was a quick definition of these two terms for an exam. Instead I got this beautiful display portraying a clear picture of what I needed to know. Wonderful. Simply Magnificent. Wish me luck on my exam!!
Honestly, I like this definition waaayyy better than the standard definition from the dictionary LOL!
You understand when you say “Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations” That this is in fact a statement that was made possible by what you were taught, in every possible way. Therefore it is biased towards who taught you to make statements & arrive to the conclusions that you do…. Making its absolutely biased.
Cheyenne,
You commit an elementary reasoning error. Basically what you said is known as “Damning the source”. Google it sometime. You can’t say the people who taught you were biased and that makes you biased. Ultimately you think all people are biased without saying so. Even in the case if I hold biases my statements do not have to reflect my biases! I can without bias say “The New York Giants won Super Bowl XLVI in 2012″. Your argument is psychological and fails. Many people fail to distinguish philosophy and psychology so you made a common mistake committed billions of times by others. Holding biases about the topic may hinder the result of the TOPIC. My bias against the Patriots football team ( I hate Brady!) means nothing if the subject of discussion is religion for example. To point out a flaw like holding any kind of bias is changing the topic. When people have nothing to come back with, they change the topic: politcians do this all the time! The topic is objectivity and you ought to stick to the topic NOT try to kill the origin. You can’t go back in time like the Terminator and kill the source of objectivity. Whether you know it or not Psychology taught you all things are relative and/ or subjective even if you never took a formal psychology course! Psychology is what reality TV is all about: human emotions and humans acting them out; “different strokes for different folks” stuff. Seems to make contagious entertainment but little on intellectual content.
Your argument for “damning the source” is irrelevant because the source was never damned, because the source isn’t stated nor known. Nice try though amateur. Cheyenne is correct, but you have to open your mind a little. A lot of what is assumed to be objective is simply agreed upon by a “mass” of subjective thought – conformity, for better or for worse. For instance, try to argue that Jesus was born in a different month than December, some people will claim you’re damning the source, given your reasoning. Some will claim he was never born, never existed. Saying “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl” is made objective because subjective minds agree to adhere to what the New York Giants are, what the Super Bowl is. Maybe I don’t think it’s all that Super and therefore don’t which to confirm, to allow my own subjectivity to recognize the collective object? I know, I know, my reasoning is faulty. However, it was once objective to consider Earth flat. The New York Giants exist, the Super Bowl is, but both were created by Subjective Minds to begin with. The New York Giants, the Super Bowl, exist because of a collective agreement to view it as an object. Damning the source is more along the lines of the following statement, “you can’t believe anything Roy says because he’s an idiot”.
And hello, everyone is biased – it’s called being Subjective.
“Psychology is what reality TV is all about: human emotions and humans acting them out”
you mean like your use of the exclamation mark or your comment “I hate Brady!”? Here’s a thought, Subjectivity itself is objective. Would you agree? That is given the notion that we both agree that your subjectivity exist..
Michael Stanton,
I thank you for your input. Perhaps to you I attacked psychology and perhaps you are fond of psychology. I was not attacking anyone nor was I deliberately trying to be rude. I was stating “fact”. Unfortunately, you seem as many other people in the world –fond of psychology. Your approach was like other people who think all is subjective. I am not trying to be a jerk here. I would love to state the argument crystal clear and then you tell me what is incorrect. I claimed Cheyanne used a fallacious argument which is titled “Damming the Source”. I did not make up that name. That happens to be the title of the fallacy she committed. The title “Damming the source” actually can be called another name — the infamous Ad Hom! (The correct classification is Ad Hominem but there are several variations within the class of Ad Hominem so each varaiant has a name.) Thus Cheyanne committed an AD Hom attack saying well the person who taught you was biased and that makes you biased and thus you can’t be objective. My reply was accurate. This is what logicians call an ad hom because she never once addressed the issue but found an excuse to blow the entire thing off and “walk off” as if she won. This is a big habit for those who are emotional and yes I think this is encouraged by psychology. Secondly, outside of philosophy most people define Ad Hom incorrectly. I gave the name of the fallacy specifically and I encouraged her to research the fallacy to get my being out of the discussion: meaning to say I gave evidence that is independant of ROY. This is NOT subjective. The fallacy is probably older than all of us combined. Emotional people incorrectly think an Ad Hom must be insulting or offensive to another person. This is Not so in philosophy. Emotional people have trashed the legit term which refers to the status of an entire argument to mean something else — any sentence where you offend someone is an Ad Hom to psychology majors. This infection spread because psychology is a more social subject then philosophy. To be clear, a single statement can’t commit a fallacy. So no she does not have to agree for this is not subjective. She ranted which is emotional. I did not fault her for being emotional. Her reasoning is what I critiqued, not her person! Deductive logic is about correct reasoning not purposely offending humans. It might come across that way to other humans, but the topic is what should be at hand. Put emotions aside and deal with the topic as much as possible.
Now to your input and reasoning, Michael: “Your argument for “damning the source” is irrelevant because the source was never damned, because the source isn’t stated nor known.” This does not over rule the fallacy claim! Who says the actual source needs to be mentioned? There is no requirement to have a photograph or signature of the source! Would you say x is not a number in algebra because the x is not named specifically? No! You can say x is a number in algebra because you can solve for x! There is no need to say what the name of the source is with damning the source because no matter who it is the fallacy is still committed. The result does NOT change and would not change had Cheyanne mentioned the name Bradley out of the blue. So mathematically the argument would go like this: I would say x is an absolute number; Cheyanne comes out and states that the person who taught me math is biased so x is not an absolute number! Notice Cheyanne never mentions anything about numbers themselves. This would not fly in math would it? The topic is about numbers and she goes to the source — the person who taught me numbers and tries to terminate everything in the topic. I ask you how is her strategy relevant to the topic?
IT ISN”T! This is not about me versus her. With no names included the reasoning steps she took are universally wrong in deductive logic. So for you to say she was correct needs justification. Anyone who sides with that type of reasoning has erred no matter what the name of the human who reasoned like that is. You commit another mistake yourself with the next sentence: “A lot of what is assumed to be objective is simply agreed upon by a “mass” of subjective thought – conformity, for better or for worse.” This shows me you do not know the correct definition of the term “objective”. This puts you in the mass majority who side with psychologist who focus on feelings over fact. You continue: “Saying “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl” is made objective because subjective minds agree to adhere to what the New York Giants are, what the Super Bowl is. Maybe I don’t think it’s all that Super and therefore don’t which to confirm, to allow my own subjectivity to recognize the collective object?”
So are you saying that there is no physical football team on the planet earth named the “New York Giants”? Do you deny that there is a sport with the name “Football” in America which is not soccer? Surely these things can be verified! There happens to be a championship game in the sport which is called “theSuper bowl” this has nothing to do with Roy the person. These are objective statements which are independant of the speaker thus they are OBJECTIVE. The statements are true and accurate and do not change value from true to false. If you thing they do then you must not be specific enough. 200 years later perhaps there will be no super bowl anymore but nothing changes the truth value of the statement “in 2012 the New York Giants won the super bow.” Subjective statements flip flop from true to false and vice versa. By the way you confuse popularity with objective:However, it was once objective to consider Earth flat.” Objective statements do not change value when you are specific enough!!! The mass of people did BELIVE that the earth was flat and that was a POPULAR myth that was never true and is still NOT true as we know today.
Subjective minds create all things, Michael? What subject did you learn this from? I can guess it was NOT math, physics, music, literature, writing, sport, arts, etc. If I named every academic subject I would rule out the majority and be left with only a few that teach and preach subjectivity. Psychology seems to really really desire agreement and conformity where philosphy does NOT NEED agreement. As long as you can justify your claim — no matter if it is a positive claim or a negative claim — you have reason to believe it and then the belief is called “Rational”. Otherwise, the belief is “irrational”. Even I hold irrational beliefs. I did not say all people who hold irrational beliefs should be executed! It is not that serious. Irrational beliefs ought to be minimized if we desire to grow intellectually. Emotions often get in the way of correct reasoning. Finally Michael, you proved my view that most emotional people are totally wrong about ad homs: “Damning the source is more along the lines of the following statement, ‘you can’t believe anything Roy says because he’s an idiot’.” See this is NOT A FALLACY because there is no authentic argument. That is what we call –in my neck of the woods — an INSULT. When you say ROY is an idiot there is no argument! That is called an insult only! Sure you can make it into an argument! You can call me ugly and a host of negative things, but those are NOT arguments and thus THEY ARE NOT Fallacies. INSULTS are NOT AD HOMS! I wish emotional people stop getting this WRONG. An AD HOM actually and originally refered to an ARGUMENT. Then the violator ties the argument with the attack of the person. So to say “you can’t believe anything Roy says because he is an idiot” boils down to Roy is an idiot AND an idot is not a believable person. Therfore Roy is not a believable person. Needless to say the argument is UNSOUND! (That is good news to me, whew!)
I must apologize to those who take offense to my tone. Secondly, there are some typos which I am now aware of but could not correct them. My tone is something I am trying to improve. However, my details in the writing is what should be understood. I have no problem taking critique. Be brutal if you wish, but be truthful: meaning the statements ought to be true not emotional rants alone. I am not trying to out shine any human or out shine all humans as if I am perfect. I am not perfect and do make mistakes. The best I can do is ask one to show my errors and then I take it upon myself to make the improvements. In my neck of the woods, this is taking responsibility and a sign of maturity. One of the slogan purposes in life is to not make the same mistakes as you used to. I think you will all agree that you encountered this learning proces in your lives: make a mistake, someone like a parent or a teacher corrects you, then you learn to avoid or minimize that mistake which was corrected. This is not about ego. Learning is the key to dialouge. This does not mean I am always correct nor do I believe I am always correct. The justification in beliefs helps one to get closer to truth or arrive at the truth. I happen to use deduction more seriously than many others who I have claimed too emotional.
Roy wrote ” My reply was accurate. This is what logicians call an ad hom because she never once addressed the issue but found an excuse to blow the entire thing off and “walk off” as if she won”
You’re entire premise of belief is based on subjective thought without any mutual consensus. You even take a person’s name to imply the gender of a person just as you (subjectively) imagined yourself being right when you describe a tree by its “fruit”. Wrong again bro.
The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination. Gaining consensus is only reafirming your own personal (subjective) beliefs.
Cheyenne,
Never once did you show a flaw with anything I wrote. You simply deny what I wrote is accurate. I showed you and gave illustrations what the error in your reasoning was. You don’t address any of my actual claims and show anything is in error with examples. You can’t just claim somone is wrong and “just walk off” as you DID something. You did not do anything yet! This is psychological and you are mixing feelings with rationality. This is why so many people are infected with “all is subjective” thinking. Do You believe that without any mutual consensus something can’t exist? Do You believe no facts exist because there is no agreement? These are not things you would bring up, let’s say, in MATH would you? 5+3 = ” well it depends?” You claimed this: “The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination.” Is 5+3 subjective? Is President Ronad Reagan being dead subjective? Is THAT my imgination?? I tell you if you see the real President Ronald Reagan walking around — not an imposter– then your imigination is at work! So according to Cheyenne there is no such thing as death or people who have died? Even if we take what you say as “the Real truth” THAT would be an absolute statement and that would be a NON SUBJECTIVE statement!!! In other words Cheyenne made an objective statement, if this is always true: “The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination.” If there are no false instances of your statement it is objective and factual, period. Subjective statements are those that flip flop from true to false periodically and are not absolute.
Roy you have a chip on your shoulder, the way you try to put your argument across fails!
It fails because regardless of the content in contention, you have “made a basic error” in that you have rudely conducted your counter argument purely on the basis of a difference of opinion and without provocation. Had you of been polite, your arguments would have been that much stronger. Doubtless you do not accept that you have been rude? But that Roy is for others to judge?
Now what’s that you were saying about psychology Roy?
Cheyenne, splendid synopsis, many thanks.
William,
I am in hope that you are sincere with your input. I hope and take your input as advice to improve oneself. I am getting that my tone is at fault. If that is your message, I thank you for it. If my interpretation is incorrect still let me know. I take your input as “Roy you too have issues. Your tone is often inappropriate and defeat your purpose of your argument because you push people away.”
I hear you William. My tone is something I must work on. My social skills are not the best. My lack of social skills or people skills seems quite objective from what is displayed so far. However, emotions are not the point of anything discussed. We all arrived here about a topic that we know was not emotional: the difference between objective and subjective. The claims and examples I have given had nothing to do with me being rude or being offensive. True I did not take account that others would feel a certain way but that is why I gave clear examples. Not one person claimed my examples were wrong and was able to show it wrong. People calimed things but were not able to do so consistantly without exeptions to their reasoning. I gave clear cases where the truth value of objective statements do not change and no one showed otherwise. There is no exception to the examples I gave to prove objective statements are not subjective. You should be able to see I have some experience with this topic and I did not just make these things up on the spot. My experience allowed me to use the paradigm cases which no one could refute. Paradigm cases are cases where the truth value can’t be soundly refuted! The psychology mentions I gave were to refelect why many people reason poorly. No one here would claim that in math there are subjective values. In music there is no such thing a a subjective “C note”. Either it is a C note being palyed or it is not a C note. Surely it is not up to the listener if I actually press a C note. I can rule out many academic subjects that do not preach all is subjective. Psychology happens to be one! I did not insult the subject, I stated a claim that I have seen over and over. You can tell a tree by its fruit. The same errors go unchecked and get spread like a disease. These errors are unjustifiable intellectually but people draw to them because they are POPULAR! As to your claim about my arguments, William, in deductive logic persuasion is NOT the goal to strive for. In Rhetoric, persaussion IS THE GOAL, not truth in reality. In rhetoric, no matter if you are wrong or correct the goal is to persaude only. In the cases where the argument is actually wrong, the goal is still persausion; persuasive effect allows one get over on people! In deductive logic, I submit to you that, accuracy is more important because we want to achieve soundness in deductive logic. Soundness is when our premises and conclusions are in true in reality. Rhetoric and logic can overlap but they are not the same subject. One can use fallacies and persaude. In logic you can’t get to first base if there is an error without making an effort to fix it. So now we arrive at a cross road: persausive argument or accurate and sound argument. I have seen accurate arguments fail simply because the average Joe or Sue claims “it boring” and then dissmiss the subject entirely. The psychologist always have a window to jump out when they want to exit. Deductive logic attempts to close exessive windows: psychologists create windows just in case. . .
In some cultures nodding your head means no, and rotating it from side to side means yes.
Michael,
All that would prove is that subjectivity and objectivity exists! This is not a war. It is not me vs the world. We can all agree there are clear things that are subjective. I have given clear examples of objective that have not been addressed correctly. This should not be attempts to trumph one another: I have 5 dollars and you have 7 dollars so you are better than me. If you can point an error I will consider it. The same should go vice versa. Truth and accuracy should be important here as well not just the persassive power of the argument or how people percieve my tone. As you can see I make typos here and there so I know not to be big headed. I might even misspell words. It is about learning and growing not bashing other people. I had no intent to bash people. I do so without being aware. My tone needs work and I will work on it. Besides that what about the message and the facts I claim? Subjective minds do not over rule factual content. I never address how people feel about the topic. I address the topic. To ask how people feel about the effects of nuclear technology is not the same topic as “should we use nuclear technology? What are the pros and cons.” The navy currently has nuclear submarines. Do you think the navy cares if sailor Roy feels a certain way about being on a ship powered by nuclear power? I can answer that emphatically –NO! They will careless about my feelings and put me on that sub regarless. The important issue is not my feelings towards this or that. The navy has bigger matters to worry about. Should I take that view point as offensive? No I do not. I take factual statements differently than subjective ones. Fact is what is NOT subjective when defined correctly. The common refutations then becomes “Who says what is a Fact and what is not?” Well a definition of the term fact that that holds the test of time would suffice. One definition that does not flip flop. The actual words do not matter how you define FACT but whatever that is should not violate consistancy or else it is worthless. Emotional people think subjective minds create fact and that different subjects will offer different solutions. This violates consistancy. Surely the real worl does not operate this way: I murder my brother and get arrested for murder; I defend myself in court and tell the judge and jury “Well my definition of murder is not your definition . . . There is no such thing a murder because all is subjective”. I am no gambling man but this would not pass for any person: the police who arrest me for murder this fails, to the judge and jury this fails! The problem with subjectivity is it is like a flip flopping politician: once he was for abortion now he is pro life; then he goes back to pro choice and so on. Unless the room temperture is just right you don’t know if this is wrong or correct. Objectivity eliminates flip flopping. The issue with objectivity is two fold: tone (emotional consideration of others) and your personal awareness. You might not be aware which truth value a statement holds. Nonetheless there is a truth value — you just don’t know it right then and there.
Everything is subjective….There is nothing in this world called objective. The things you percieve as ‘Facts’ are not necessarily percieved by anyone else…For example, You say a certain colour, and you called it Blue (Because you were told since your childhood that such shade is called Blue) now how can you decide that the other person’s eye are seeing the at particular color exactly in the same way as you are seeing it….Yes the other person is also calling it blue, but is it really similar sensation of color for both persons?..Cant be proved. So nothing is objective , everything is subjective in reality.
I agree. I’ll even go as far, as to say that not everyone would call it blue or any other label. Not everyone does what they are told or taught & that is a great thing about ‘what some may describe as’ free will.
Mahmood,
You must be kidding me. I addressed this poor response long before you came to the party. You are late to the party! Scroll up and read. You must address the refutation to claim I am wrong. You can’t just say some one is wrong and walk off like Cheyanne. You must be able to clarify and justify your responses. You proved and showed nothing. You just make statements because you can! Know the difference between reason and emotional beliefs please. Your claims prove absolutes exists! If you are right then “ALLTHINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE” is the absolute and objective statement!!!!
The only cop out here is if your claim is false some of the time. This can’t be true because you claim all is subjective. Look up contradiction! Either way you are wrong intellectually ; and you learned that from where?
The reason why there is no absolute that carries past one’s own self described absolute is
I’ll help you with this one. 5+3 = ”8” You claim this: The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination.
@Mahmood.
I agree with what you have said & believe the same way.
But I don’t know if your views are a subject of philosophy or if you have to be a philosopher to talk about all this.
Now, can you prove all the examples that Roy has mentioned in this article as subjective in some form(example : “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl” – is subjective – how??).
If your(our!) claim is correct then it must apply to all known facts , or at least to the examples discussed in this thread.
If you can do that, that will be really something…..
The new york giants is a name that was given by somebody that has also been labeled (whoever the person that gave the new york giants its name). Both are subjected to the name that was given to them in birth. They did not give themselves their own label, therefore they are only subjects of the opinion by which & who has labeled them. Of course whoever had this initial opinion could find some deciples to also believe in this personal opinion & they could even act quite formal about it. In which case they may kick & scream while crying that what they have called something is in fact what they have called it. However, if you leave it up to the labeler & dont think for yourself then they might be quite pleased with you. It is no more than the oldest form of teaching (labeling with formalities or better known as dictation). It does not mean it is the correct or right way to teach nor does it mean it is the incorrect or wrong way. It shall be left up to each and every one of US to decide for our own individual likings. =)
Cheyenne,
You still ignore the fact that names can be arbitrary and subjective but once something is named then it has history! Thus, it has factual relevance. At some point in time the football team was named. It does not matter how many times the name changed it was NAMED and that is fact. Facts are statements that are forever true. Opinion and otherthings can change. You have never adrressed any of my claims yet. Each time you go off an something else. Now please address after a thing is named how is it subjective? Numbers were named ! So is the sum of 5 and 3 equal to 8 or not since the numbers were named?? According to Cheyenne there seems to be nothing factal?? So is it subjective that most of the entities that have posted replies above are human beings? Did a non human post anything on this website?? Is a person’s mother being a woman subjective tooo?? How far can you go with this inconsistant belief and nonsense. I mentioned already if there is no false instance of any statement then that statement is ABSOLUTE. You seem to have a universal statement Cheyenne if you are correct. Then you claim nothing is absolute!! Let’s say you win Cheyenne how do you avoid the inconsistancy you created??? Address these things Cheyenne. You are simply restating things differently and you’re not bringing anything new to the table so far. You play dodge well though:)
“once something is named then it has history! Thus, it has factual relevance. ”
I don’t agree, what has been named by another does NOT have any factual relevance to me. None whatsoever. There is no label in this world that I agree with as having any real forever lasting meaning or having any meaning at all to me, other than to help you get by with what you want to think, so you cope with whatever lie you want live with in life. Just because a human can make a barking sound which appears identical to what you hear from the dog, (which we as people can do with our words & definitions towards each other as well, im sure) only has the appearance of being identical, it does not mean the human is actually saying the exact same thing as the dog nor do they feel to have the exact same meaning for whatever is said or not said. We can echo what someone else may or may not be trying to get across, Yes. In which case you’ll never know except for what you think you know from your opinion. Opinion’s are usually shaped from birth, by the opinion & from the one that has taught you of what an opinion is, in their most honest opinion.
Cheyenne,
You still go off the topic and insist on telling your opinion. The topic is NOT about any opinion at all. Because you disagree with something doesn’t mean anything alone. You are making yourself the authority over others and being dictator like. When will you address the issue at hand instead of changing the subject? When will you address that if you are correct then your claim is an absolute? Cheyanne, come on is your claim that all knowledge is subjective ever false? If the answer is “NO” then your claim would be an absolute! Yet you claim there are no absolutes. Which is it, absolutes or no absolutes?
@arjun…Thanks for your reply….
My point is that the writer who claimed that ”
Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.”…Now here the key words are “Facts” and “Third Parties”…..My opinion is that the word “Facts” is vague and ambiguous. F
Fact is something that actually exists…Something that IS there…regardless of observer…Once it is decided that something is there, a rational mind comes forward and try to know it quantitatively and qualitatively. A true ‘Fact’ is both quantitative and qualitative….Quantitative knowledge is gain through comparison, for example 5+3=8 , it involves comparison. because we have divided something in 8 equal parts and than we say it is equal to five plus three….But this is not the whole picture. this 5+3 will not be equal to 8 if all those parts are not equal and same….And there is nothing equal and same in the world. (At least i have not seen yet)….So this ‘objective’ knowledge is based on mathematical assumptions…And mathematics is the knowledge of relationships between the things, not the knowledge of things itself….Qualitatively everything is different and unique…And we can percieve “Facts” qualitatively, only in the mirror of our own selves (Subjectively).
Mahmood,
You again failed at your refutation. Your argument is close to Cheyenne’s and fails because of basic errors. Your definition of “fact” is wrong and you probably learned that from science. A “FACT” is an expression of an absolute truth value which corresponds to human senses and our world (reality). So facts do not need confirmation nor do they need agreement. Only a scientist or science lover would confuse “FACT” with ther personal AWARENESS. For instance, if I state there is life on Jupiter, the scientists would ask “How do you know?” which is not the point. Do you see asking for sense verification satisfies personal awareness? Personal awareness has nothing to do with the issue at hand : the issue at hand is the statement uttered is true or false regardelss of my awareness or your awareness. I gave this next example higher on the threads but you tell me if this is not clear: Harold Camping and “Familty Radio” spent significant amounts of money to tell the world was comming to an end on “May 21, 2011″ many month prior to dooms day. How do you know if it is true or false if you are a scientist? Does the claim the end of the world is May 21, 2011 have no truth because you are not personally aware of it? Is it Foolishness to say Roy can’t have a cat because I am not aware of it? Furthermore, also Roy is being a jerk not to let you into his house to conduct a scientific study so there will be no way to confirm anything. What do you do? All meaningful sentences (those that appeal to our senses) are either true or false whether you like it or not. Your awareness is not needed for a black hole to form in our galaxy or the birth of a new star. These things can happen regardless of human awareness. So the statement is not true because you don’t know about it? Nonsense! Astronomers can find out afterwards just like we found out on May 12 that the world DID NOT END as predicted by Harold Camping. Thus his statement was false. The claim did not all of a sudden become false one day out of the blue. I say the claim was true or false the second Mr. Camping uttered the claim, but we were not aware of the truth value until the time passed which was May 12, 2011. Do you see the difference between personal awareness and fact? A fact is forever true when you are specific enough, period. If the claim is not true 24/7 365 days a year, it is NOT a “FACT” regardless who utters it! People in Authority do not have God like power to “MAKE” anything a FACT by speaking the thing into existence: first came the word FACT and then it was so. WRONG way to think. Respect authority but don’t over do it as if they are GOD. Where do you get facts mirror stuff from??? Is saying “Whitney Houston died in the year 2012″ subjective?? Is Whitney Houston’s death a fact?? With my definition it is a fact only in two cases where the truth is 24/7 365 :
a)there is no evidence of her being alive. (In other words, there is no counter example.) AND [notice the "and"]
b) all the evidence points to her death. (Here is where science comes in.)
Notice, please that the evidence is present in only one direction — not two or three. The cases are combined and not to be seperated. Facts are always true when specific enough. If you find one that varies from true to false you might misread, misheard, misunderstood, misinformed, or you were not given enough details. Kill people with extreme details and it is hard to deceive!
I just stumbled upon this discussion and have to admit that I have thoroughly enjoyed the banter. I am in no position to add my perspective as my educational background involves very little of either philosophy or psychology. Business and accounting were the order of the day when I was in school. However, I will say that in my career I have personally seen people lose years of their life to time spent in prison because they believed that just because someone wearing a suit in D.C. said something was illegal didn’t make it illegal for them. Like I already said I lack understanding on the topic of subjective vs. objective, but it seems to me that this would be an example of a subjective perspective being dangerous and having dire consequences. I could be way off base, but I’m hoping this will elicit some feedback and spark further discussion.
Josh,
Your view expresses a practical view because you have used your senses to determine that politicians can place their values over the average person. Does that make law making subjective? Well, yes. Does that make the lawmakers superior? NO! This goes on to another issue — that of who has authority and power. The more resources and the more that individual has access & control over those resources the more power that individual has. So this brings up savage like behavior: in apes this is called the ALPHA male. The strongest APE usually wins. This has nothing really to do with intelligence, schooling, upbringing, etc. All that matters is the Alpha males wins at any cost that benefits him. This pattern found in humans and other animals are factual and absolute. We have historical and sensory evidence to prove such is the case — and that can’t be erased. I would say that a condition NOT subjective to any of you would be this: if Roy were King, he would do things differently than if Josh were King We can probably agree whoever is King would make at least one different rule from other Kings. Either the claim is true or false and is not subjective — and as always your agreement is not relevant to the claim.
Roy is King, just like you say, an absolute Authority (a King with the muscle to prove it) over all. Everything, nothing, something & anything can’t deny their King because its been said with or without agreement. Sorry but words are just words & they’re completely meaningless upon the end of each of our current flesh, that’s being objective.
Here’s your mathematical equation. #1 stays the same as #2 and so forth & beyond, as much as #1 ever could be. #1 Eats #2. Therefore #1 stays alive from the taking the so called life from #2. However since #2 also has eternal life no differently than #1, It has never changed within itself. Some may describe this temporary change by showing it was nothing more than some other language thats explaining the exact same thing. #1 or #2. Your first or second language & so forth. Life =Death=repeat after me 1, 2, 3, 4 what are we fighting four, for.
Everything Is Subjective, By Being Absolutely Objective Towards All We’re Subjected To.
Time is subjective yet when it is trying to be described with eternity, its attempting to describe objectivity with subjectivity (is time really unmeasureable & forever, if it is labeled to be known & understood)
We’re subject to all the different objects that things happen to, which in turn creates many different views to what really has happened. Especially when someone other than that perticular object is the subject that we’re focused on, which is the subject or ‘object’ that it has happened to. I conclude that, that means we’re all in the same boat. The labeled & those that think they are the actual labelers yet they never named their own selves no less.
Cheyenne,
When will you address that there are absolutes? If you are correct then you are making an absolute such as saying “we are all in the same boat”. That acknowledges there are absolutes! I never did deny that some things are subjective. I know many things are subjective and I know there are absolutes ( the objective). Many things in the practical world are subjective because we often have to deal with a person in charge. However all things are NOT subjective. Many of the things you claim are subjective are examples of vague details. Try giving or getting more information about the subject! Time is NOT relative when you specify hour, minute, and second!!! The more specific you are you will see there are more absolutes than you ever thought were just hanging around.
You’re on the right track Roy but you need to think even deeper. Take any word for example. The word “race” is a man-made word, yes & so is the word “human”. Many of these ‘humans’ are the only beings out there that act like they are the masters of all life, they wish they could define the meaning to every word out there for all other life especially the lives they label as ‘human’. Going beyond your individual self is asinine & a weak attempt at tyranny. There is no real Authority in the world that stems from man-kind. Man kind is a very limited being & it shows in their very brief history.
There is no one word that all life, let alone all humans agree with for its meaning. Semantics is one of those words. I’m glad to be one of the many that don’t agree with any dictionary definition for any word out there. Everyone wants to make something up apparently, especially the achievement of having other’s see it ‘their’ way. There is no compromise in the so called ‘place’ where all life goes after their final moments here on earth or elsewhere & there’s no need or care to agree nor disagree with what i have to say because i really don’t care what anyone has to say, including myself.
Roy,
I am sorry you find it difficult to exist, intellectually, in what is an absolutely uncertain (pun intended) dichotomy. Everything is both objective and subjective. Everything. And yes, that is both an objective and subjective statement. Einstein started to bridge the gap. I am sure you can too. Best of luck to you.
Guys,
one thing that is definitely objective and not subjective is that you are winding Roy up….
“The sun shines in the daytime” maybe both subjective or objective depending on where you are. As is “the sun shines in the nightime” may also be subjective depending on where you are.
But in fact the sun always shines 24/7. So all the comments are objective. It is a fact. It is just our viewpoint of the facts that change, so our view point is subjective not the action.
So Roy, your basically right!
Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective.It becomes your reality. “Your Reality”. Every thing you see, taste, or feel is basted on your subjective reality. The number one, which some people would claim is an objective absolute is based on other peoples subjective reality. The problem begins when I am willing to do anything to force you to except my Reality. AS fare as I’m concerned when someone claims there is a “one” and you have to except that no matter what. We have a problem. Then I no longer have to subjectively look at the number one. Learning stops Sorry if I am missing the argument but I wanted to express my subjective reality.
PTdoug,
Expressing your feelings is what subjective things are about which make them sort of biased. There is nothing wrong with venting per se. However, the subject was never “let us vent our emotions about such and such”. The objective does not become subjective ever. Both can be present independantly at the same time. The issue with most people who think “all is subjective” is admitting where did you get this belief from. Were you born with that belief? I doubt it! I claim that most people learned such a thought from authortities such as a parent, a teacher, firefighter, police man, any one a child might admire. Since you were taught as a child to listen to authorites and respect authorities when you hear them speak their words hold more weight than Joe Blow off the street. Being that authorities deal with humans they tend to have to know psychology. So the culprit for teaching allis relative and subjective is Pyschology as a subject. You certainly won’t find a math teacher say that multiplication is subjective. You won’t find a mucic teacher that says that the C note is subjective and what ever you like it to be. So you like most people from childhood do what you are told and nothing more (with this topic at least). Even if you take religion such as Chrisitianity there is no subjectivism about what the ten commandments express. You, like millions of people who do what they were told, confuse reality with your emotions or desires. Your agreement is NOT needed for something to be a fact. Who cares if you disagree with anything? That does not address the issue. If I oppose abortion for instance, then it is not enough to say I disagree with abortion. I should have true reasons that lead to my conclusion. If I use false statements, then there is a good chance the reasoning will go wrong. So true statements are required as reasons –not you feelings. You ignore the obvious fact that if you claim is true then the claim is an absolute and not subjective. It is not subjective because there is one answer for all. there is no false instance. Thus, you make no intellectual sense for you disprove your claim “all is subjective”. I say if your claim is true then the result doesn’t support your position AND if your claim is false that “all is subjective,” then your position is again defeated. You are wrong in either case logically. Your statement, “Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective” appears to be a result of that authority raised background: “Sit down and listen, boy . . . !” Being that there is no authority in your view, YOU put YOURSELF in charge as the authority! Can you provide any evidence for the claim “Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective?” I don’t know what it would take to prove that claim and chances are you don’t either. You are simply trained to think that way and you can’t rationally defend it. You do what you are told to do as a good boy should. As an adult, there is more room for independence and a wider range of views.
I have googled for this difference many times but did not come across a page that explains it with this much clarity. Good job and thanks:)