Talk:Objectivity (philosophy)/Archive 2

Subsection removed and self-reverted

I removed the section on Ethical naturalism, which was picking up on Ethics and was starting to get pretty far afield for the Objectivity article--very POV and not at all informative as it was written, in any event. This section you propose to add to, on Objectivism and probability, has possibilities ;-) ...Kenosis 03:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The section on Naturalism was paraphrased from the article of the same name from Macmillan, 1967, I just haven't had time to add my sources yet. I added it to the article to accentuate the distinction between factual and evaluate discourse without having to refer to the objective/subjective dichotomy. The first sentence was from the wiki article Moral (naturalism). I thought it was a good median of Ethical Objectivism and Ethical Subjectivism. Feel free on the section on objectivism and probability. The section on constructivism is tenuous, at least in name. Amerindianarts 03:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I'll go revert then. ...Kenosis 04:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is something you might see as POV I would be interested. More detail for clarity?? Is citations sufficient?Amerindianarts 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your last edit; I think that helps bring it back into the ballpark. As to that other section on probability: I haven't looked into it quite yet, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there may be some superb material in the current literature related to probability in the quest for intersubjective verifiability and thus objectivity, especially since science depends on probability so heavily (confidence intervals, margins of error, statistical significance, etc., of observed, measured and tested phenomena) even in sciences such as psychology. Indeed psychology may be a good place to start looking, because among their most challenging tasks in the last half-century — handled very impressively I might add — has been to further clarify this issue and reconcile the relationship of subjectivity with the objectivity. But I'm about to call it a night; take care for now...Kenosis 04:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it. Amerindianarts 05:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be a challenge. As there is no separate article on objectivism in the traditional philosophical use, and because objectivism has today become so closely tied to Ayn Rand in the popular usage, there is a potential minefield to be negotiated. But I imagine it can be done with due diligent attention to the subtle semantic details...Kenosis 16:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, objectivism was a term first used by Frege in the 19th century in reaction to Kant, and doesn't have much of a history. Like objectivity, as a concept it may have more history, but it has to be researched and dug out. I don't really think of Ayn Rand as anything but an author, not a philosopher. If you think the section is not important enough-delete it. Amerindianarts 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem I'm running into at the moment has to do with the more traditional usage of "objectivism" within ethics, which refers to the discussion of of an objectivist approach to ethics--one of the three basic positons already sectioned out in the existing article on Objectivity (philosophy). This will take a bit to sort through, but as I said, I think with caution it's do-able so as to arrive at something reasonably stable and not a complete POV magnet. I'll research it gradually over the next week or so, and report back to you. As to the probability and objectivity part, that would be easier for me to write from memory than to research right now. But, also quite do-able...Kenosis 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

neo-objectivism

What is neo-objectivism? --Gbleem 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Google it! Amerindianarts 07:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Moved here for either rewrite or determination of relevance. Some standards of philosophy determine Marx and subsequent writers as social scientists and not necessarily philosophers. This article is not about politics of the social sciences, but objectivity in philosophy. If retained in might be renamed to suggest a broader view of the social sciences and relinguish its agenda in concentrating on ideology. It really is more appropriate to another field, as written.

"In political decision-making, ignoring relevant evidence or alternative interpretations could lead to policies which, although well-intentioned, have the opposite effect of what was intended. In this context, it is often argued that albeit democracy might hamper swift, decisive action, it is nevertheless the best guarantee that all relevant facts and interpretations are included in the process, resulting in policies with greater long-term benefit.

Taking an objective approach often contrasts with arguments from authority, where it is argued that X is true because an authority Y says so. The presumption is that Y is an authority capable of taking the most objective approach. But it may be necessary to evaluate the view of Y against other authorities likewise claiming to take an objective approach. This is an important aspect of academic scholarly method in the modern sense.

Some Marxist authors, such as Georg Lukacs, have argued that true objectivity is in fact achieved only by dialectical materialism, which would be the only "science" to have a perspective on the "totality" of the historical process. Beyond the polemical intent in criticizing "bourgeois science", Lukacs' famous book, "History and Class Consciousness" (1923) was a powerful critique of Kant's critique and of his "bourgeois conception of science", which induced an unbridgeable gap between the subject and the object of knowledge, and thus condemned reason to the knowledge of simple phenomena. Thus, Kant believed that reality ("noumenon") could not be objectively known. Lukacs criticized this idealist conception which set aside the social and historical process, which, according to his project of an "ontology of the social being", is in fact the ultimate reality." Amerindianarts 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Other uses

This paragraph is controversial. Mathematics can be introspective and to claim that it is subjective defies sense. We can envision a perfect triangle in introspection and it may not conform perfectly to a triangle in reality, but this does not mean it is subjective knowledge. A geometer may still insist upon its objectivity.

Introspective knowledge, knowledge about one's own feelings and mental states, is also called "subjective knowledge" (and is contrasted with "objective knowledge" of objects outside oneself. Here "objective" indicates the subject matter rather than the status of the knowledge ("subjective" knowledge of oneself might still be "objective" in the sense of "unbiased".) In marketing and consumer behavior studies "subjective knowledge" is a person's evaluation of the quality of his own knowledge.Amerindianarts 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical accessibility

This article uses Boolean logic symbols without linking to any articles that provide background on that subject, or providing background itself. -- Beland 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Quite frankly, this suggestion is non-sensical. Objectivity in science is a very small part of objectivity in philosophy, and philosophical objectivity is often critiqued in scientific method. The two different methods have very little to offer one another in practice. The adage is "a philosopher is a scientist too lazy to work in a laboratory". Funny, but offers the concise distinction in method as Practice. The combination of the two would likely be a comparative with relevance a likely target for considerable theoretical wandering (POV)Amerindianarts 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To separate these articles would be quite non-sensical and surely promote POV. This article is, or should be, about objectivity. Science tries to achieve objectivity; philosophy discusses objectivity. It's the same, from two different perspectives. Both perspectives should be described in one article. Currently, it's a POV fork. Both articles are quite bad currently, full of POV, Weasels and trivialities, BTW. --Rtc 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this article. It has been reviewed. The POV is nothing but your opinion.Amerindianarts 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my arguments. The article may have been reviewed, though that does not mean anything. And the review certainly did not discuss any merging questions. --Rtc 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The review took place. The article was discussed and open for discussion for anyone. Recently. The review was closed. That does mean something. The only person who seems to find fault with the article or thinks there is a need for a merge is you. This not pseudoscience. If you think there should be a section in this article for objectivity as it applies to natural science you are welcome to try. Otherwise, you have provided no foundation or concrete examples to support your suggestion or your criticisms. That is on you. This is your onus. The current article was carefully researched and applies across the branches of philosophy without naming any particular philosopher's theory except to provide a couple of extreme positions. As it should be. It is also based upon thirty plus years of experience in the discipline. Your suggestion of a POV fork has little foundation and I suggest you find a different avenue to implement your input. If you feel you have something to contribute here then go for it. But I don't see any merge in the future.Amerindianarts 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity as a philosophical concept is a far broader topic than objectivity as a term in science (currently framed as objectivity (science)). A merger is not unreasonable, but far better to keep 'em separated, as is currently also the case with Objectivity (journalism). It would be reasonable to provide a brief section with a link to objectivity (science). Objectivity in science is, however, sufficiently important that it merits its own article. ... Kenosis 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested a merge of Objectivity (science) to Scientific method. I see the former as simply duplicating that article. The article Objectivity (science) is really a stub. It needs work and could be expanded if it is to stand on its own.Amerindianarts 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting suggestion. Have you seen the article on scientific method? It's fairly detailed and although it has a reasonably accessible introduction, the article is not really designed to give a casual reader a simple summary of that topic. Truth be told, I'd prefer to see the article on objectivity in science (currently objectivity (science)) developed to a better extent. Don't have the time to do it at the moment, but I'd be willing to put it on my "to do" wish list. ... Kenosis 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I am familiar with your good work at "scientific method" as well as "empiricism". Amerindianarts 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that "The current article was carefully researched and applies across the branches of philosophy without naming any particular philosopher's theory except to provide a couple of extreme positions. As it should be." (emphasized by me) That is exactly the point, since I think this is contrary to how it should be and contrary to NPOV policy. Take for example the position that "Empirical evidence based upon observations and experimentation in the physical world is conducive to the verification of scientific judgments, and adherence to the rules of deduction and the process of inductive reasoning implements the determination of the validity and soundness of scientific arguments and conclusions." This is certainly a relevant position (the inductivist approach, logical positivism), but it cannot be kept without qualification, since it is strongly disputed by other positions in philosophy. However I agree with Kenosis that perhaps at least the big part of the merge of Objectivity (science) should be with scientific method. But perhaps at least the introduction here needs to be reworked. It is quite unreadable, makes use of unencyclopedic style ("we") and does neither explain what Objectivity is all about in the first sentence (compare the much better [1]), nor concrete points of view (See for example the wealth of positions described by Adri Smaling: Varieties of methodological intersubjectivity - the relations with qualitative and quantitative research, and with objectivity. Quality & Quantity 26 (1992), 169-180, especially "The relation between intersubjectivity and objectivity". --Rtc 14:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Once you start adding particular positions of philosophers you compound the very problem you are emphasizing. How many philosophers are you going to add, and how many counterpoints do you want to add? That was the major problem before the rewrite. It concentrated on particular philosophies and was very unbalanced (besides being extremely poorly written and providing misinformation including such notions as objectivity in journalism and the whole gamut). Should we add them all? If so then I suggest another article on the "History of Objectivity in Philosophy", because that is what you are suggesting. The first paragraph states exactly what objectiivity involves in philosophy. The site you refer to is just another attempt to define what is virtually undefinable. The first noticeable thing in Part 1. of that article is the weasel word "many". The same in the third paragraph. My impression of the article is that it smacks of objectivism, which is not the same as objectivity. I also think you are missing the point. I changed "we" to the objective case "one". But, doesn't "we" imply the possibilty of intersubjectivity, whereas "one" is very objectivist and confusing to objectivity's possibilities (which is one of your criticisms). You missed the point here, and the more I think about it I should probably revert my own edit. The intro is not unreadable, at least it didn't raise any concerns on review.

The article as a whole is not perfect, but I have also tried to get this article deleted twice, and failed. My reason, the concept involves original research, and this is not allowed at Wiki. This subject involves a concept which is undefinable. If you check Macmillan's encyclopedia of philosophy you will find no article on objectivity, and will find references throughout regarding controversy and the inability to define it. No matter where you look, notions of the concept's definition will involve POV. This article tries to emphasize the undefinability of the concept.

I suggested the merge at Objectivity (science), so obviously I agree with Kenosis also.Amerindianarts 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Emphasizing the alleged undefinability of the concept is POV, too. The previous version (I didn't have a look at it) may also have been bad, but there is not much improvement in changing one POV into a different POV. I completely agree with the IP below that it is simply destructive to start from the assumption that philosophers must not be named (except for extreme positions) and to claim from the very beginning that the topic is not definable at all. We should start by describing the general idea (subject/object) without the slight weasel problems of [2] (which is linked from the article BTW, not something new I came up with). --Rtc 05:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as POV. It is for the most part common stuff taught in philosophy classes. A great deal comes from the sources cited. The person below made horrendous edits that completely lacked sense. The prior version by User: Lapaz was horrible, unbalanced, and full of errors. If you think you can improve upon it, do it. Worst case scenario is you'll get edited. A merge is bunk. A section of science is acceptable. I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this article is destined to shambles. The current version is a tremendous improvement upon prior attempts. And It is probably unreadable to the layman. Amerindianarts 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The articles should be merged. Probably Objectivity (philosophy) is the best title to keep them under, since it is broader. But there's just one thing here, which as someone said philosophy discusses and science tries to achieve. Of course the converse is true too, and there are other undertakings that aim at objectivity in different ways.

Far more important is that the article is very bad as written. I tried to fix it up a couple of months ago, but Amerindianarts ignored my arguments (which see above), makes absurd claims about how it should be written (witness right here: we shouldn't name philosophers; the topis is indefinable, etc.) and seems to consider the article his private fiefdom, so the confused and unreadable introduction remains; I lost interest in bickering over it.130.49.147.62 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember this person's baloney. All one needs to do is check the history and see. Oops, this user is anonymous, so these comments have little credence, and could be anybody (sockpuppet?) Amerindianarts 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion to 130.49.147.62 is that if you have something to say, say it. Meaning, if you made edits in the past then obviously you have an ID under which you made the edits. So, have some balls and let us know of your edits. Amerindianarts 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

inline citations

this article desperately needs some sourcing, ideally some inline citations. it is the objectivity article; this should be a given! :/ JoeSmack ^Talk 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I see some confused individual finally added some non-philosophical material to this article, i.e. Ayn Rand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.213.238 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Structrualism

All very well, but what has it go to do with objectivity? 1Z 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Ok. I took Intro to Philosophy 2301, so I'm hardley an expert here, but the way most of this topic was written is that of a philisophical approach, which is exactly why the "normal" approach at reading and comprehending this is somewhat confusing.

(switching to philosophical thinking cap) In non-philosopher speak (if there is such a thing), objectivity cannot be perfectly defined because it would imply that the perfect objective definition would have to be given--a definition which does not exist. Obviously, even the reasoning behind this uses circular reasoning, which again makes it impossible for a true philosopher (who begins by knowing nothing) from even attempting to define it without disproving their very definition.

(takes off philosophical thinking cap) Yeah, "true" philisophical thought makes my brain hurt, but that's the best attempt to explain it that I can give. Other than that, the philosophers that do try to define it don't agree with each other on the definition. Few "experts" in the philosophical field will cite sources as to their own ideas of what objectivity truley is, so the only way to make this article more accurate is to have a non-philosopher read up on it and cite sources, but apparently the only ones interested enough to put forth the effort here are the philosophical ones.

Okay, now that I have confused everyone here thoroughly as well as made myself out to be an insane kook--well that's as good of a note as any to leave this on :D Bourgeoisdude 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A SERIOUS PROBLEM HERE

Someone please explain to me why in hell "neutrality" links to THIS???!!!207.69.140.35 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)crap_on_conservative-biased_wikipedia

As a concept, neutrality is the same as objectivity. Duh.

Secondly, this article, as it currently stands, reads much like a college student's essay on the subject of objectivity. It is actually highly subjective, and uses circumlocution, inflated language, and obfuscation (e.g. double negatives) for no real reason. Fuzzform 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" coincides with one use of the word "objectivity", that is as a personal attitude. But that usage is barely mentioned in this article -- unlike the article on subjectivity which is almost entirely concerned with the neutrality vs bias issue.1Z 12:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is dealing with philosophical objectivity, which a completely different meaning of the word to "neutrality". I've changed the "Objectivity and Subjectivity" article accordingly. Neutrality vs. bias has nothing to do with philosophical objectivity, which is the opposite of subjectivity. Objective truths are true for everyone, subjective truths are true for individuals only. Mathematics is objective fact; my evaluation of pop music isn't. It's nothing whatsoever to do with neutrality. So I agree, the link is a bad one.Fledgeaaron (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

General applications

Why does so much of the "General Applications" section deal with avoidance of bias? That isn't anything to do with strictly philosophical objectivity! Those who want to read about other definitions can go to the "disambiguation" and find what they're looking for there. I wish this article would stick to the point...anyone mind if I delete most of that section? 77.107.196.31 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Methods of inquiry?

I don't see why the historical method or peer review guarantee objectivity (especially in the colloquial sense of the term, but even in the more formal sense used in the article). Certainly they may contribute to the veracity of historical canon, but they may also introduce collective bias where there previously was none. Metasquares (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, that sort of information doesn't belong on this page. I don't know who has put so much irrelevant information on here. 77.107.196.31 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivity

I'm a bit concerned about the treatment of subjectivity on this page. I'm only a philosophy minor, and definitely not an expert, but as far as I understand, subjectivity and its relation to objectivity (or objectivism) is far more nuanced than the idea of personal taste, as this article suggests. Particularly within the context of continental philosophy, it tends to be connected to consciousness or experience rather than preference. For example:

• Continental Philosophy
• Phenomenology

I would take a crack at it, but I don't really feel I could do it justice.

Zpaine (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no article called Neutrality?

Cross-posted in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Neutrality (philosophy) is a red link. Neutral and Neutrality lead to a disambig page which directs the reader to Objectivity (philosophy), as if the two concepts were synonymous. Worse, in the Objectivity article, there is no section called Objectivity vs. Neutrality. This absence is hard to understand from Wikipedia, the champion of neutrality. Is this the result of a policy? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This article now has a Objectivity vs. Neutrality section. Please remain constructive in your edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality (philosophy) now exists. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Some English, please?

"Objectivity, as a method of philosophy, is dependent upon the presupposition distinguishing references in the field of epistemology regarding the ontological status of a possible objective reality, and the state of being objective in regard to references towards whatever is considered as objective reality."

I don't have a clue about what the very first sentence is supposed to mean. Nor about what the entire rest of the article is supposed to mean. It needs serious rewriting, so I added the cleanup tag. A.Z. 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody didn't take Philosophy 101. The first sentence was quite self-explanatory, but probably not suitable for the layman. 67.175.44.77 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs cleaning up, but how? On a line-by-line basis, or by reverting back to something much more basic and slowly rebuilding? 1Z 10:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. I can't answer it, since I don't know what the current lines are supposed to mean. A.Z. 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Parsimony" and "Objectivity and Subjectivity" sections

I added these sections and they are open for discussion.

It has been suggested that samplings of "objectivity" as used by individual philosophers be added. This can be difficult, I think, without considerable original work and possible POV. Even if extremely well-cited, the sources themselves may be tainted and in an article discussing "objectivity", it may compromise the subject matter. For example, Plato was an important figure as far as introducing the notion of discourse or dialogue as essential for discerning the objective. But he was also considered, for instance, by the medieval philosophers as an "exaggerated realist", and by Leibniz and others as an "idealist". Placing Plato in a particular school of thought (as well as Kant and many others) can be controversial. Another alternative is a section on schools of thought with contrast and balance observed if individual philosophers are placed in any particular category. Nonetheless, it could be done. I would, however, propose changing the section on "Constructivism" to "Historical variations" on the concept in philosophy with the warning that the section may become lengthy and cumbersome, and that parsimony be closely observed.Amerindianarts 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "Objectivity and Subjectivity" section. You may not agree with my new version, but I felt that since the article was discussing philosophical objectivity and subjectivity only, it needed to contain concise philosophical definitions of them. I didn't feel a contrast with journalistic objectivity was sufficient to define them, especially as that only describes what they are not and not what they are. As for my examples, they seemed to me neutral and not requiring citations (mathematics, painting), though my definitions themselves may require some. If you think my definitions are not 100% accurate, then feel free to change them. I just felt something really needed to be done. Fledgeaaron (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire "Objectivity and Subjectivity" section is dubious. Encyclopedias are not dictionaries, and the definitions themselves are vague and sloppy. Ratiuglink (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is dubious. Trash. Amerindianarts (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Exists" vs. "exist" and "independent" vs. "independently"

Philosophers would prefer "independent". Yes, it modifies "exists", but "exists" in many circles is just another mode of stating the copula. Thus, you would say "An object or fact is independent of the mind" but you would not say "An object or fact is independently of the mind", or, you would say "objects and facts are independent of the mind" but you would not say "objects and facts are independently of the mind". "Objects and facts" are the same as reality or an ontological realm without reference to whether "objects and facts" is a class or classes of things.

Actually, either "exists" or "exist" is perfectly coherent in the sentence and follows preference over rule. "Exists" not only modifies "reality" but the disjunctive of "reality (of objects and facts) or an ontological realm of objects and facts". The conjunction of "facts and objects" represents either a class, or classes, of facts and objects contained in "reality" or "ontological realm". The objectivist does not commit to either "facts and objects" as a class or classes here, but stresses the definition of "independent". It is an intended open ended sentence to avoid commitment while stating the definition. Either "Eexist" or "exists" works, no rule, just a matter of preference. Conversely, independent is the rule. Amerindianarts (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Propositions

Why doesn't this article have any reference to propositional truth? 67.175.44.77 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It had a pretty good sourced section at one time but the editors that have botched this article had it removed. Amerindianarts (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The section on propositions seems to have been removed by this edit. Do we want to restore that material?Fixer1234 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Looks like it was deleted by one of those Rand cultists impregnating Wiki. That material has since been published by the author in a complete article on objectivity elsewhere. Amerindianarts (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

This is not an article on objectivity and non-philosophers. This article WILL NOT be edited under a guise of another Rand article. The best that Rand can hope for in this article is mentioning how her objectivist philosophy should not be confused with objectivity in philosophy. The inclusion of her POV comments about Kant in the recently reverted edit lacks objectivity.Amerindianarts 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OOPS. I didn't see your comment before I rewrote, but my first concern was adding some substance where it was clearly lacking. I didn't leave Rand as the only arbiter of the term, and discovering that Montague coined the term used by Rand surprised me. I also put in the MIT reference. See my comment in the section (below) about Rand.

But I will not say that my edit did much. It is a difficult subject, which upon reading upset me for its lack of "flesh". I'm going to attempt to add more flesh, a little at a time, ignore Rand as much as possible, and put some history in: for example, before the 17th century the term used to mean the exact opposite.

Also, there is a direct epistemological link to the term "cognoscendum" which means "object of consciousness," and therein lies the controversy: can an object of consciousness exist within consciousness if it does not exist empirically? As an object of consciousness can an abstraction or a conception be an "objective" entity? Searle makes the point that it cannot, not from a third-party scientific inspection, but that from a first-person perspective such an object is most certainly objective even while being subjective (in the mind only). Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Major re-write to intro section and section on ethics

I think that someone reverted some of the changes described in the previous post. That's too bad. This page was full of nonsense.

The intro paragraph was totally inaccurate. Some earlier versions of it were pretty good, but the most recent version contained serious grammatical errors, stylistic problems, awkward phrasing, and (most importantly) philosophical confusions. For one thing, it was inappropriate to discuss the logical concepts of soundness and validity, here, especially under the non-standard names used by previous users. Objectivity is a much broader concept than deductive logic, which has its own wikipedia entry. A person can be objective without employing deduction, at all.

The MacMillan (1967!) article on objectivity is out of date, and wasn't particularly well-done in the first place, as any professional in philosophy would tell you. Ethical naturalism is now taken to be the view that ethical facts are constituted by natural facts, i.e., facts that can be stated in the vocabulary of natural science. Actually, this interpretation of the view dates back to G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, 1903. Some versions of ethical naturalism count as subjectivism, because the natural facts in question are people's feelings (Hume's theory is an example, here) and others count as forms of objectivism (e.g., the version favored by Frank Jackson in his book, _From Metaphysics to Morals_, OUP 1999). It's not clear whether to call the views developed by Peter Railton and Richard Boyd and Nicholas Sturgeon versions of subjectivism or objectivism. But in any case, naturalism is not a "median of" subjectivism and objectivism. It's a category that is defined by whether the ethical facts can be labelled using non-normative terminology, whereas the objective / subjective contrast concerns whether the facts are dependent on or independent of perceivers. Cf., for example, Alan Goldman, _Moral Knowledge_, Routledge, 1988, or the introduction to _Essays on Moral Realism_ by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Cornell UP, 1989. User:Humbert.h.humbert17 August 2007

My own changes did not go far enough to remediate the errors in this article so I thank you for your successful efforts at continuing this much-needed work. I fully and wholeheartedly endorse your changes. 67.90.197.194 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ethical objectivism" on a subject about "objectivity"? It belongs under "ethics" of one heading or another, but not in this article. We must decide whether or not "objectivity" is going to be about its metaphysical and epistemological nature: OR whether all the arguments about objectivity that apply to "ethics" are going to be hashed out here. I may be an Objectivist myself, but I (think) I know when NOT to start muddying the waters with material the reader has not come looking for. Talking about ethics here does nothing to define "objectivity" as the opposite of "subjectivity" or of any other opposite.

It belongs somewhere under "ethics". Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what are you saying? That there isn't an objectivist (please please note the small c) view of ethics? Why metaphysics and epistemology? Ontology is as important, more recent work on naturalising phenomenology also comes into play. --Snowded ^TALK 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

recent reverts

Dear Amerindianart: you seem to be engaged in a series of wholesale reverts of some recent changes I made to this article, which was a huge incoherent mess. I'm going to put them back in, since you haven't, I think, adequately defended your reverts, and because this article--as you've mentioned above--needs help. I will not list every point, but I'll put a few choice selections on here to explain why my changes were improvements. Cheers.130.49.146.31 13:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote:

Objectivity is the trait of being uninfluenced by certain factors,

such as personal opinions or value judgments. A fact (such

as that the sky is blue, or that the Mona Lisa is beautiful) is objective if its truth or falsehood is independent of what any person thinks of it. A source of knowledge (such as science or religion), or a person (such as a witness, or a scientist) is objective if the claims they make are based on and reflect objective facts.

You preferred:

Objectivity has various meanings in philosophy, and is surely one of the most important philosophical problems, since it concerns the epistemological status of knowledge, the notion of objective reality and the question of our subjective relationship to other objects in the world.

(1) I refer to objectivity: a trait, not a word. This is, if at all possible, the preferred way to begin an article. You refer to the word, saying it has several meanings without giveng them, and in the same sentence refer to it as a problem. (i) Are you talking about the word or the problem? (ii) What problem? There are certainly plenty of problems about objectivity. But I don't know what it means to say that it is a problem.

(2) I elaborate the primary definitions of the term: what it is for a fact, a thing, or a person, to possess objectivity. There is nothing that I can see that is contentious in these definitions. You merely say what objectivity "concerns". You define it partly in terms of objective reality which is about as circular as you can get.

(3) I use straightforward, familiar examples (the sky, the Mona Lisa, scientists). You use big expansive phrases that mean nothing to a layman (nor to me either, despite a fair background in these matters): "the question of our subjective relationship to other objects in the world" (a) It concerns Which question about that relationship? (You say the question: which one is that?) (b) What major philosophical issue doesn't involve our relationship with the world? There's no point in a definition that doesn't distinguish your topic from other topics.

Shall I go on, or will you please read what I write more carefully? 130.49.146.31 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And in answer to your specific remark on that edit: You asked how aesthetic facts can be independent of what anyone thinks, and call it nonsense. Perhaps it is. Believe it or not, a number of philosophers have claimed exactly this. Plato comes to mind. THe notion of "music of the spheres", the perfect music of the heavens but which could not be heard by anyone, was all the rage in thet Middle Ages.

I agree that the article is a mess. I disagree with your edits, and including the most recent revision of your edits I have explained. Your intro paragraph was way off the mark. Like I said, it was worse than the first and upon careful reading was philosophical incoherent. I gave the reason. You also treat realism amd objectivism as interchangeable. They are not. You also treated objectivity as independent of subjectivity. It is not. Subjectism would hold an element of truth in its position and therefore an objective approach. Objectivity may then be based on "personal feelngs" or perceptions if those perceptions are reasonably universal. For this reason "subjectivity" cannot be said to diametrically oppose "objectivity". It also makes no sense to use aesthetic or moral examples to state that objectivity is independent of value judgments. Thus, the statement "'Mona Lisa is beautiful' is objective if its truth or falsehood is independent of what any person thinks of it" is paradoxical. If there were a reality which stated the Mona Lisa was not beautiful, then everyone's opinion that it is beautiful would be false. This makes no sense. It is beautiful exactly because of what someone thinks about it. Objectivity does not change that. The article is bad but that is not license for changes that are not consistent with an objective approach to objectivity in philosophy. I explained my revisions as needed. Terms like "many" are called "Wiki weasel words, also. Check the guidelines. This article must be objective.Amerindianarts 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, your last edit referring to "realism" replacing those "meaningless sentences" and replacing the current edit will always be reverted. You need to read it, and understand it. Amerindianarts 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Questions about objectivity make up many central strands of philosophy. Philosophers dispute (under metaphysics)" This makes no sense. The central strands of philosophy are its branches, and the dispute is not limited to metaphysics. The ontological status of reality is one aspect, but objectivity also concerns logic and epistemology and what we say about things. What you say is that an object can be true or false. It cannot be true or false. Only reference to it.Amerindianarts 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely ambiguous. What are you trying to say "Taking an objective approach to an issue thus means having due regard for known relevant facts, attempting to attain as much information as possible, reasoning logically, and avoiding appeal to personal feelings. If relevant evidence is denied or falsified, an objective approach can become impossible. " Are you saying that if evidence can be falsified it should still be relevant? If evidence is disputed or even falsified, is this tantamount to reasonable doubt. What are you really trying to say?Amerindianarts 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the sciences objective knowledge is generally sought after. On the other hand, some topics are considered by many to be inherently subjective: judgments of beauty or moral value, for example. If a fact is simply subjective, then it is not possible to make an objective judgment on it. Some philosophers hold that subjective evaluations are better, and more appropriate, to fields such as art and morals". As I stated before, this article needs to be written to state the comprehensive, and this sentence eliminates any theory of objectivity in subjectivism, e.g. morals, which many philosophers do adhere to. Metaphysically, Berkeley may have been wrong, but if he wasn't, your formulation would exclude it. Can't do that here. Amerindianarts 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I began by editing your comments, and I did not revert or remove them all. You are now in violation of the three revert rule, and I will report it. Amerindianarts 14:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you're trying, but you're really not getting it right. (1) My paragraph was not incoherent, let alone "philosophical incoherent", and I'm afraid you don't address most of my points at all. (2) I do not consider realism and objectivism interchangeable: I treat them as having a certain overlap, which they do. (3) This, I'm afraid, is not a meaningful sentence: Subjectism would hold an element of truth in its position and therefore an objective approach., or if it is one, it is not intelligible enough for an article. You are, and you should not be, advancing your own philosophical theories here. (4)I offer sentences as examples not to say that they are, or even could be true or false independently of human judgment, but to indicate what it would mean for them to have such a status--possible or not. (5) More importantly, whether or not you like or believe it, there have been major philsoophers who have held exactly this: that the facts about beauty do not depend on anyone's judgment. Plato springs to mind. You say: It is beautiful exactly because of what someone thinks about it. Now you are doing philosophy again! The response, given a million times, is this "Which person's thought makes the Mona Lisa beautiful?" or "If everyone dies, or forgot about it, would it stop being beautiful? Would it change?" But thBut my point is that the goal is to report, not philosophize: forgive my being so bold, but you are not good enough at that.

(6) "many" can be a weasel word. In this context, though, it reports a simple fact and stands in need only of citation. The use of surely in the version you keep putting back is much more objectionable.

On the next batch: (1) Are you appealing to some deep distinction between strands and branches? They're both figures of speech, , and I did not say that these questions arise only in metaphysics. They are characteristically metaphysical questions. I can't imagine how much simpler a sentence you want, than "Questions about x are central to field y". Note that (perhaps accidentally) you broke the quote in the middle of a sentence. (2) Nowhere do I say an object can be true or false. I am speaking about facts. Parse the sentence again. (3) The bit about "relevant evidence" was an attempt to salvage an earlier passage on "taking an objective approach", and it improves on it as it stands. The confused sentence you criticize was in the article before I made any changes, so please don't attribute it to me. (4) The sentence that "Some philosophers hold that . . ." does not rule anything out, because some philosophers do hold exactly that. You need to understand that there are disputes on these issues and that the appripriate way to convey them is to report those disputes, not to attempt to do philosophy here.

130.49.162.53 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, let me explain the meaninglessness of that meaningless mess. You maintain:

Objectivism is thus inclusive of objects which we may not know about and are not the intended objects of mental acts. Objectivity requires defining truth, and the objects themselves are not true or false. Only references, or what we say about things, are true or false.

The first sentence may say something, if you work on expression. Right now it appears to say that objectivism--the theory--contains some objects we may not know about. (1) I assume you mean it applies to, or more precisely, postulates, supports, endorses, maintains, or affirms the existence of. Take your pick, but not "is inclusive of" (if for no reason other than to avoid the passive voice). (2) may not is in the wrong place. It's more sensible to say that the theory holds that there may be objects we don't know about, than that there are objects we may not know about. the second clause, stripped of the half-Meinong language, presumably means that we haven't thought of either. Avoid technical jargon when it's dispensible. (3) The next claim--objectivity requires defining truth--is manifestly false. The fact of objectivity--if fact it is--will be so regardless of whether we define anything. Perhaps you mean that we need to define truth in order to (a) understand objectivity, (b) formulate objectivism (c) understand objectivism, or (d) prove objectivism. Not one of these requires a definition of truth in any obvious way, and you don't explain why you think they do; and many prominent philosophers have claimed that truth cannot be usefully defined at all; not all of them have rejected the possibility of objectivity. (4) Objects aren't true or false: In one way this is trivially false. Many objects, paradigmatically written and spoken sentences, are true or false. Propositions, thoughts, beliefs, and claims, are also considered objects, depending on whom you ask. A prominent book on the logic of questions--by Nuel Belnap--suggests a way to treat questions as true or false. In another way, presumably the way you meant it, it's too trivially true to need mention. Are there many people under the impression that onions (for example) are, or might be, true or false. (5) "References" is being misused in this sentence. THe relevant count-noun meanings of the word are: a mention of something; a thing mentioned; a citation of a source; a source cited; an endorsement or statement of support; a person offering such a statement. What you want is perhaps the word claim, or assertion, or even statement.

Now stop claiming that I don't understand what you're saying. You're not expressing yourself adequately, or else you don't understand what you're saying. [end. Please use tildes next time.]

Let me ask: Does the section entitled "Objectivism" belong here, when the author states, "Essentially, the terms "objectivity" and "objectivism" are not synonymous," and does nothing to tie "objectivism" to "objectivity". I don't think it is badly written. It engaged my attention. But it seems to belong on a disambiguation page where it can be separated from Ayn Rand's Objectivism, or incorporated into that article since it's obvious Frege and Montague got there before Rand. As an Randian myself, I dont' think it belongs here. The fact they are not synonymous muddies both topics. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On revert of Snowded's revert

I put this at the top because you claim I placed nothing on this page. Wrong. See these http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=315136413 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=315138912 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=315148931 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=315151548 As you notice, I did indeed "talk" about this, including questioning the improper placement of certain aspects of Objectivism including Ethics under this heading.

While I believe I am being as diligent as possible, even questioning the screwy placement of certain subjects where they don't belong, I did not leave Rand as the sole source of my work.

Montague isn't good enough for you?

Runes isn't good enough for you?

Agreeing with the previous author who said, "the terms "objectivity" and "objectivism" are not synonymous," and asking why he then placed it there, is not good enough for you?

The introduction of the question as to whether or not "an object of consciousness [such as] an abstraction or a conception [can] be an "objective" entity?" is not good enough?

The four pieces of discussion I left were obviously missed by you (or deliberately ignored) since you seem to be intent on jumping immediately on anything I contribute. YOU were the one who told me to put my comments on the Discussion page and if you had anything to say you would say it there. You fail to live up to your own lesson.

As you will notice in the notes I left yesterday, even I question when a reference to Rand should or should not be used. But the subject is Objectivity, Montague did say it had to did with the knowing subject, Rand did use this as her own justification, "objectivism" as in "ethical" does not (in my opinion) belong under this heading, but some reference to Objectivism as a philosophy that maintains over and over, book to book, that objectivity is the hallmark of reason deserves some mention one way or another.

I'm angry, but I have no animosity toward you---yet. From now on, please don't tell me I left no discussion where clearly you are wrong, and after you read my notes please comment on them directly so that I may alter my own work instead of having it instantly deleted by you as if you had your eye on me--with animostity. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is normal practice to put it at the bottom of the page. You are making assertions not discussing matters and you might want to note that the other editor response was in agreement with me in one of my responses. --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for my tone. I read what you put on my Talk page, and I responded. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, CEC Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) {{subst:undated|13:48, 21 September 2009

Intent to remove text

The article is currently marked as needing a full rewrite by someone with expert knowledge. While this would be a productive step, I would like to ameliorate the problem now by at least removing the most irrelevant, misleading and nonsensical text. I started doing this but was, quite understandably, mistaken for a vandal. This time, I hope to avoid any misunderstanding my documenting my intentions in advance.

As I see it, the chief flaw of this article is that it has been damaged by a war of POV's, with some parties seeking to bias the article towards the views of postmodernist epistemological skepticism. While this critical view should certainly be reflected in the article, it cannot dominate to the point of adding weasel words and disclaimers everywhere. My first set of changes will be to remedy this issue. 67.90.197.194 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another user than the one above. This badly needs to be rewritten by someone who wants to talk about what objectivism is rather than what others feel its flaws are. It reads much more like a critique of how it is impossible than what objective philosophy is about. In short is is horribly biased. It may have a criticism section but should be be in the discourse of what objectivism is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.141.230 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's Objectivism & Structuralism

Ayn Rand's Objectivism should be added to this article since the name itself is the same. Structuralism should also be added to the article objectivism.

-- Despite the title, Ms Rand's godawful work has precious little to do with Objectivity 121.44.251.71 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it godawful, but objectivism is not the same name or thing as objectivity. Amerindianarts (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No the two words refer to the same thing. However what Ayn Rand called "objectivism" isn't objectivism. The term existed long before her illiterate rantings came on the scene. Perhaps its better to refer to Objectivism as Objectivism(philosophy) and her version as Objectivism(Liberatarianism). 121.45.244.161 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

i dont know, i thought those books were a pretty cool guy. Howard roark built skyscrapers and doesn't afraid of anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.39.182 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:"Ms Rand's godawful work," The Dictionary of Philosophy: Rune: 1942, states: "Objectivism, epistemological: Doctrine maintaining that everything apprehended is independent of the apprehender. (Montague.)" That fact is the very fact Rand fought to defend. It makes me wonder how familiar she was with Montague's work, but it proves that "objectivism" and "objectivity" are epistemological and metaphysical concommitants, inseparable. You can't have "objectivity" without "objectivism" as defined by Montague. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As I remember it Rand thought there were only three philosophers of note, Aristotle, Aquinas and herself os whether she was familiar with other work is an open question at best. Whatever you cannot define this article by her language and concepts, she is at best a footnote. Can I suggest that you propose changes here first rather than just editing direct. You know your views are controversial so best to try for agreement first. --Snowded ^TALK 18:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be wary of confusing philosophical positions with philosophical movements. "Objectivism'/"objectivity" is rather standard terminology, and it is not surprising that they be put to different uses. Yes, Rand was an objectivist as well as an Objectivist, but as Snowded says, her work belongs at best as a footnote in the grand scheme of things, in metaphysical terms an obscure and unusual intellectual offshoot of Aristotelianism. I'd also echo Snowded's point about Rand's intellectual heritage – her intentionally distant relationship with much of the philosophical tradition and idiosyncratic use of philosophical terminology mean that it would be dangerous to populate the body of the article with material derived from her writings.  Skomorokh  18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2+2=4?

This is a particularly bad example of an objective truth, as it assumes that the numbers refer to decimals (as opposed to base 3 or base 4 numerals). In other words, in base 3: 2 + 2 = 11, and in base 4: 2 + 2 = 10. Please refrain from using mathematical examples as a basis for objectivity unless you know exactly what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioColbert (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to use the 2 + 2 = 4 example but it should be represented in a different way. When we speak of 2 + 2 = 4 we are using the symbol "2" to represent the idea of "two" and symbol "4" represent the idea of four. In other words, "2" is only one of several symbols of REPRESENTATION of a number. For example, we represent two in binary as 10 (which, in the common standard used in english, is two^zero (the first digit on the right ONLY represents this when there is a "1" in place) plus two^zero (where it only represents this if there is "1" in this digit) where the "^" means "to the power of").

So when you say, "In other words, in base 3: 2 + 2 = 11, and in base 4: 2 + 2 = 10.", you are basically saying the same OBJECTIVE TRUTH in different representations. 2 + 2 = 11 is not thought of as "two + two = eleven" in base 3 nor in base 4 as "two + two = ten", because we are using "11" and "10" to represent four in different systems. So we choose the system represent the objective truth: $2+2=10$ (base 3), $2+2=11$ (base 4), and 二　＋　二　=　四 (using Japanese numerals) mean $two+two=four$. So I agree that it can be confusing to use this example represented as 2 + 2 = 4 but it could be written as $two+two=four$ --Stan the fisher (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe that 2+2=4 is used as an example of an objective truth. IMO how naïve. 2+2 belongs to certain sets of arithmetic languages. The entire notion of strings of symbols is a recent human endeavour. Adding number bases to it doesn't make it more true - it just obscures the issue altogether. I am unsure of how one would begin to even establish the objective truth of natural numbers in the first place; the fact that sense organs tend to glob certain clusters of quarks (whatever) into separate things, then correlate them as belonging to a countable strategy (whatever that is) - and make some sort of meaningful sense of that is so embedded in psychological processes that it hardly bears thinking of. Moreover, the very basis of truth (aka fact in the offending sentence) belongs to certain logic structures. It's a linguistic entity. Even Kant gave up imagining what an Objective Truth could look like. Philosophy has moved on quite some since then. It's pretty much accepted by modern philosophers that there is no such thing as objective truth.

Regardless, the entire article is lacking in citations. Get cites. (20040302 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

I'd say (Russell/gauss/etcs work not withestanding) it counts as an analytic truth, not a synthetic truth. The question is, do purely analytic truths count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.244.161 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OR §

SFAIK, it is and hasn't a single source. Opening this thread for the process. To my knowledge there's nothing in the English tradition to conflict with Rand's brand and that doesn't even address the fact that the nominal subject is not Objectivism (philosophy). SFAIK, the bit about Frege is a confabulation, yes there's a line of inquiry that descends from him in regards to the denotation of objects but ... . Won't pull it without due diligence but has been flagged as such for like 4 years now. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand, doesnt really have anything to do there

This is my first comment on wikipedia and I hope I will do fine in this suggestion. There are several objective philosophies apart from Ayn Rands "objectivism" or randism. To mention Ayn Rands philosophy while not the others, does strike me as rather odd. Either compile a list of all philosophies that advocate objectivity, with giving them equal space. Or erase Ayn Rands section.

She took the name "objectivism", but as stated she is not the first to have used that term, Gottlob Frege was before her and possible others. Too be honest, I fail to see the relevance to give Ayn Rands philosophy an entire section. Her philosophy might be mentioned at the bottom as further reading, or something like that among other objective philosophies. As far as I can tell, she is only mentioned 'caus she picked the name objectivism. Mandarni 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree - I'm no philospher, but it seems quite out of place here. --Joopercoopers 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well- The misappropriation of words disrupts our ability to communicate and distorts what we comprehend.

Randism has no place in an article about Objectivism --Kronocyber (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

True. I have seen several commentators on this page who are confused. This article is not about Objectivism. It's about Objectivity. Completely different concepts. Objectivism claims to have a concept of objectivity, but Objectivism is not synonymous with Objectivity in philosophy. Amerindianarts (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how 2 letters can make all the difference in the world. Objectivism really isn't straight Objective philosphy. Its opinions on art and beauty are especially subjective. 74.222.70.113 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ann Rand does have something to do here as she has brought objectivity into the popular realm. Even if you disagree with her politically, your removal of any link to Randian objectivism detracts from the value of the article. It would also make sense to have links to the scholarly works of David Kelly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelley . To have an article titled objectivity without a mention of objectivism seem politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Why is there a video of a direct attack on objectivity (of journalism) in an article about philosophical objectivism? Would it make sense to start the topic religion with a video of Christopher Hitchens stating that "God is not great"? Such an edit would not last for a second, and for good reason. On Wikipedia, criticism is generally moved to the end of an article, as text, and most definitely not as the only video in the introduction. I propose we hold to that script. Furthermore, why is the opinion of a random journalist valued over explanations of many philosophers, given that this is a philosophical topic? This article needs cleanup. I suggest we start with just that. Please remove the Honorable lady to the journalism section.

Best regards, OnLiberty (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Objectivity (science) into this article

I propose merging Objectivity (science) into this page, as was proposed in 2006. It is very annoying that there are two articles on the same subject. For instance, when wikilinking "objectivity" on the Philosophy of science page, I would like to link to the content in both of these articles. As it stands, the articles don't even refer to each other, likely because there is no sensible way to say "objective means X in science but means Y in philosophy." (The meaning in reference to science is a subset of the range of meanings in philosophy, as has been previously noted.) -Hugetim ^(talk) 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for added distinction between articles, without labeling either a pseudoscience

My own first suggestions would be that this article should be re-named "Objectivity (philosophical concept)" rather than "Objectivity (philosophy) in order to more clearly differentiate it from something like "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" which is called "a philosophy" (or philosophical system). To be perfect, it seems to me that the article on Objectivism ought to be named "Objectivism (Philosophical system) as it is not Rand herself or all of her opinions about everything, but actually a lot more specific than that. --78.69.217.113 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

I guess I expected to see here on this page, as she is the mother of modern objectivism. dsgncr8or (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)