Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Epistemic neutrality

Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:09:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was having a chat with someone in my Feminist Philosophy class today, and I was wondering what y'all think regarding our ability to be epistemically neutral. How much can we separate ourselves from things, and to what extent can we be successful in making objective observers of ourselves?
Aibohphobia
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:14:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think I could be completely neutral in any topic at all. And though I won't speak for humanity, I do believe it us nigh impossible to be truly neutral on anything.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:24:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 9:09:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I was having a chat with someone in my Feminist Philosophy class today, and I was wondering what y'all think regarding our ability to be epistemically neutral. How much can we separate ourselves from things, and to what extent can we be successful in making objective observers of ourselves?

Why can't we be objective regarding something we don't know about? I think we can... e.g. if I was to take a class on the Philosophy of Language (which I know little to nothing about; my friend introduced me to it very briefly during a discussion we were having), I would have no bias on it. Primarily because I lack knowledge. It's like a ton of clean slates, each one labeled with a unique category; I don't really have any beliefs if I haven't had anything written on the slate labeled "Philosophy of Language".
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Aibohphobia
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:31:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maybe. I don't think I could be as I would develop my own thoughts immediately upon hearing about the topic, and many other factors such as personal beliefs, experience, content of whatever, influence you.

But then again maybe not, and by going into a subject blind you are neutral.
ln074246
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:35:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 9:24:48 PM, m93samman wrote:
Why can't we be objective regarding something we don't know about? I think we can... e.g. if I was to take a class on the Philosophy of Language (which I know little to nothing about; my friend introduced me to it very briefly during a discussion we were having), I would have no bias on it. Primarily because I lack knowledge. It's like a ton of clean slates, each one labeled with a unique category; I don't really have any

you might not know you have any bias... but you've certainly used language before.. and have a certain understanding of it ;)

and upon taking a closer look at it.. are apt to understand it in certain ways.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 10:09:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 9:35:21 PM, ln074246 wrote:
At 2/9/2011 9:24:48 PM, m93samman wrote:
Why can't we be objective regarding something we don't know about? I think we can... e.g. if I was to take a class on the Philosophy of Language (which I know little to nothing about; my friend introduced me to it very briefly during a discussion we were having), I would have no bias on it. Primarily because I lack knowledge. It's like a ton of clean slates, each one labeled with a unique category; I don't really have any

you might not know you have any bias... but you've certainly used language before.. and have a certain understanding of it ;)

and upon taking a closer look at it.. are apt to understand it in certain ways.

I don't think you understand what the Philosophy of Language is
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 10:31:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 10:09:25 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 2/9/2011 9:35:21 PM, ln074246 wrote:
At 2/9/2011 9:24:48 PM, m93samman wrote:
Why can't we be objective regarding something we don't know about? I think we can... e.g. if I was to take a class on the Philosophy of Language (which I know little to nothing about; my friend introduced me to it very briefly during a discussion we were having), I would have no bias on it. Primarily because I lack knowledge. It's like a ton of clean slates, each one labeled with a unique category; I don't really have any

you might not know you have any bias... but you've certainly used language before.. and have a certain understanding of it ;)

and upon taking a closer look at it.. are apt to understand it in certain ways.

I don't think you understand what the Philosophy of Language is

that was actually me.. just accidentally posted when my gfriend's account was up..

and.. I think your natural understanding of what language is is important to understanding what language is.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 12:43:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 10:09:25 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 2/9/2011 9:35:21 PM, ln074246 wrote:
At 2/9/2011 9:24:48 PM, m93samman wrote:
Why can't we be objective regarding something we don't know about? I think we can... e.g. if I was to take a class on the Philosophy of Language (which I know little to nothing about; my friend introduced me to it very briefly during a discussion we were having), I would have no bias on it. Primarily because I lack knowledge. It's like a ton of clean slates, each one labeled with a unique category; I don't really have any

you might not know you have any bias... but you've certainly used language before.. and have a certain understanding of it ;)

and upon taking a closer look at it.. are apt to understand it in certain ways.

I don't think you understand what the Philosophy of Language is

any preconceptions you have about a thing can cause bias. even your conception of what philosophy is, or what you already believe about language. i don't think you understand what bias is :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 1:38:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 9:09:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I was having a chat with someone in my Feminist Philosophy class today, and I was wondering what y'all think regarding our ability to be epistemically neutral. How much can we separate ourselves from things, and to what extent can we be successful in making objective observers of ourselves?

Your question takes for granted that the best epistemic engagement with existence and with ourselves would be "objectivity".

However, there's another point of view, that this reality of ours is a creative, valorizing engagement with its own intrinsic potentialities; in other words, reality = the process of discovering, choosing, and actualizing its preferable potentialities, i.e. its highest "values".

From this it follows that the object is not to attain some intellectual state of "neutrality", to "separate ourselves from things" and view life from an aloof and antiseptically objective standpoint; the ticket to "truth", to use a word that the postmodern nihilists here will predictably pooh-pooh as a passé shout-out to a romantic binary way of thinking, is not at all impartiality.

Quite the contrary, being feelingly and passionately partial to and involved in the most brilliant and beautiful, splendid and sublime of reality's potentialities, in those "values" that are the most affirming of life's goodness, is the way to key into "truth", personal and cosmic.

Huh, how's that? Well, it's because "truth" and "knowledge" are really an axiological construct that we participate in hammering out in our own minds and hearts and lives. "Truth" = "values", the most ethically excellent and "spiritually" stately "values". That is, "truth" = all the poetry and aesthetic content and morality and compassion and love that we pull out of and introduce into the universe.

Quite simply, "truth" is how these "values" define existence and our personal experience of being in existence. And "knowledge" then is taking a "preferential option" (to borrow a term from Latin American liberation theology) for the most "enlightened" "values". And "enlightenment" is mindfully applying them. Gaining and living with a correct understanding of yourself and the world is not a matter of being "objective", it's a matter of cultivating the right biases.

And PS, no, when I assert things such as that "truth" is an "axiological construct" and a matter of embracing the right "biases", I'm not saying that "truth" is just subjective and that we should surrender to being wantonly subjective. I'm saying, rather, that "truth" is intangible "values" that we make tangible in our own experience, we co-construct the truth of the world by actualizing the values we choose to actualize. If you want to be a more self-aware and insightful-about-life person, then don't strive for "objectivity", strive to participate in the actualization of life's best values in a more conscious and intentional fashion. In still other words, "truth" is not subjective, but it is a qualitative quantity that's appreciated and pragmatized with feeling and feeling-guided reason, not cold wertfreiheit.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 10:35:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@matt & belle: Maybe it was a bad example, although I don't change my position. Knowing what language and philosophy are doesn't mean I have any preconceptions about the philosophy of language. That's like saying that because I've tried cheese and I've tried tomatoes then I understand what pizza tastes like. It's totally different.

Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I selected a random name from that list- simulism. I have no idea what it is. I would have absolutely no bias when I first come to reading it.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:23:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 10:35:38 PM, m93samman wrote:
@matt & belle: Maybe it was a bad example, although I don't change my position. Knowing what language and philosophy are doesn't mean I have any preconceptions about the philosophy of language. That's like saying that because I've tried cheese and I've tried tomatoes then I understand what pizza tastes like. It's totally different.

Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I selected a random name from that list- simulism. I have no idea what it is. I would have absolutely no bias when I first come to reading it.

I think it's impossible for a human to have no bias when considering anything. Perhaps you can have minimal or negligible bias - but no bias?! Nah...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:23:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2011 10:35:38 PM, m93samman wrote:
@matt & belle: Maybe it was a bad example, although I don't change my position. Knowing what language and philosophy are doesn't mean I have any preconceptions about the philosophy of language. That's like saying that because I've tried cheese and I've tried tomatoes then I understand what pizza tastes like. It's totally different.

Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I selected a random name from that list- simulism. I have no idea what it is. I would have absolutely no bias when I first come to reading it.

I think it's impossible for a human to have no bias when considering anything. Perhaps you can have minimal or negligible bias - but no bias?! Nah...

What bias would I have when it comes to simulism?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 9:47:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:48:11 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:23:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2011 10:35:38 PM, m93samman wrote:
@matt & belle: Maybe it was a bad example, although I don't change my position. Knowing what language and philosophy are doesn't mean I have any preconceptions about the philosophy of language. That's like saying that because I've tried cheese and I've tried tomatoes then I understand what pizza tastes like. It's totally different.

Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I selected a random name from that list- simulism. I have no idea what it is. I would have absolutely no bias when I first come to reading it.

I think it's impossible for a human to have no bias when considering anything. Perhaps you can have minimal or negligible bias - but no bias?! Nah...

What bias would I have when it comes to simulism?

The way you view the world is a bias. The totality of your experiences affects you as a bias. "Bias" doesn't solely denote a preconceived opinion one direction or the other.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 9:52:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:48:11 PM, m93samman wrote:
What bias would I have when it comes to simulism?

It doesn't need to be to it. Any means you employ to study, criticise, integrate etc., the information is employing a form of bias. Bias isn't necessarily bad though. :)
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 4:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 9:52:58 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:48:11 PM, m93samman wrote:
What bias would I have when it comes to simulism?

It doesn't need to be to it. Any means you employ to study, criticise, integrate etc., the information is employing a form of bias. Bias isn't necessarily bad though. :)

What?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:58:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 4:22:48 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 2/12/2011 9:52:58 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:48:11 PM, m93samman wrote:
What bias would I have when it comes to simulism?

It doesn't need to be to it. Any means you employ to study, criticise, integrate etc., the information is employing a form of bias. Bias isn't necessarily bad though. :)

What?

It's necessary to having a conception of the world in the first place ;)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."