It helps corroborate or disprove proposed relationships between observed phenomena. Whether you consider this to be dealing with reality is a personal choice.
What you
consider has no effect on reality (though your
actions which could be based on that consideration might). Reality is what it is regardless of your personal evaluation of it.
You decide reality. You might not experience an ability to alter sensory phenomena to any great degree but how you perceive yourself and your relationship to your surroundings is a choice, conscious or otherwise.
You can decide your
interpretation of reality or of your sensory phenomena or of your surroundings. But the only way to tell if that interpretation is closer to correct than other interpretations is by objective testing.
Well, in order for that statement to be valid you have to believe that objectivity, a phenomena which cannot yet be scientifically validated itself, is a priori real. This is a position, it cannot be validated objectively.
True, but the alternate is solipsism, which while not disprovable, is not a particularly useful philosophy. I choose objectivity because of its long track record of providing useful information that is independent of anyone's beliefs. I could be wrong. But if I am, then you don't exist. To admit that you do would be giving in to objectivity.
Objectivity offers the possibility of "proof," but makes no actual statement about the validity of such proof. If you observe the world in a certain way then you can create objectivity.
I believe this to be incorrect. A single observer cannot create objectivity. I think that is inherent in the definition of the word.
You can create empirically substantiable statements about relationships between observed phenomena. But this does not of itself make any statement about the nature of reality. Merely that if you look at something one way, it repeatedly behaves like so.
I believe you can
convince yourself of this. I do not believe it makes it true.
Thus I would dispute that objectivity has any a priori demonstrable validity of itself. It is simply a tool which offer the possibility of changing our surroundings as we choose.
I disagree with that definition. Objectivity means you
cannot change the surroundings as you choose, at least not without your manipulations being observed and recorded, or at the very least, disputed by others. Such a manipulation would invalidate any objective experiment.
If two people perform the same experiment, it must be performed exactly (or as close as possible) the same way or else, it is not the same experiment. When two experiments yield different results, the first thing you ask is "What in the surroundings might have been different?"
I would agree that people who avoid fear through fantasy are invariably afraid of objectivity.
Well, I'm not so hard on people. I think all of us have some things we are skeptical about and somethings we believe without evidence. I try to minimize the latter, but I don't claim to be able to eliminate it. But just because a person has some fantastical beliefs does not mean they can't be objective about some things. Like they say, "On a used-car lot, everybody is a skeptic."
And there's nothing to be ashamed about for being afraid of death. Death is damn scary. What is (I think) a shame is to escape into fantasy to avoid being scared by death. Bravery is not being unafraid. Bravery is facing reality in spite of your fear.
I don't have a problem with objectivity itself, it's just when people are on this whole objectivity is the only way trip then my experience is that it's usually fear that's driving them, and finally this is going to limit your fun.
I disagree with the fear part, but I agree that you don't need objectivity for some things. I love fantasy and sci-fi. I write music and poetry. I love my wife without analyzing why. Sometimes I dance for no reason at all. But these things aren't the same as trying to find out what is true. As you say, they are just for fun. But for
knowledge, objectivity has proved to be the best tool.
What you are seeing here on these forums is but a tiny fraction of a poster's full humanity. We laugh. We love. We create. We cry. For these things, you don't need double-blind experiments. We're really not so bad when you come to know us.
I'm into a healthy use of objectivity. I regard it like a drug. It has its uses but it can be bad for you if you get addicted.
I don't think anyone here would argue that the only way to enjoy a kiss is objectively. I may not even want observers.
