Okay, first, it may be helpful to point out that this statement has at least one (and possibly several) logical contradiction in it. You say that there is no standard use for 'objective' other than the dictionary, but then you state that the only standard that could be considered would be 'objective' as it is used in journalism. The origin for the standard use of 'objective' cannot come only from the dictionary, but also only from journalism. This is impossible, a logical contradiction. You're assigning the unique origin of the standard use for 'objectivity' to two sources. Now, if you were to say that the origins of the standard uses for 'objectivity' were not unique, and could originate both from the dictionary and from journalism, then this statement would at least be logically consistent in that regard. Then, however, you would have to explain how the dictionary can be an origin of 'standard usage,' rather than what most people consider it to be, merely a source that describes what is taken to be the standard usage of words. You would also have to substantiate your idea that 'objectivity' as used in journalism is, in fact, different from what is in common use, and that its use in journalism is ambiguous.
In any case, here is the definition for the word objective. And here is the definition of the word subjective. These are in the dictionary because the dictionary collects words that are in standard use by the population speaking the language that is covered by the dictionary, and then describes what those words are taken to mean by the population speaking that language. These standard definitions, as you see in dictionaries, are based on how the words are used in the real world. This is one reason why redefining words is such a bad idea, because if you do you then fall out of line with the standard definition (as described by the dictionary and used by everybody else) and then nobody can understand what the heck you're talking about.
Actually, we're not telling you that this is how we define terms. We're telling you that this is how these terms are defined by the vast majority of people who use the terms, and therefore these definitions are the correct definitions of the words as used in the English language. There will always be deviations, i.e. people who use the words incorrectly, but those deviations are generally very quickly corrected since most words have very solid definitions that are already in common use, and using any other definition will make it difficult or impossible to communicate intelligibly with people. People who use nonstandard (incorrect) definitions for words will normally have a very strong motivation to learn and use the correct definitions so that they can communicate effectively with people.
As far as the contradictions and inconsistency that you mention, we're telling you that there are no contradictions and no inconsistency in the correct definitions of the terms "objective" and "subjective," which are the definitions that we've been using. We've demonstrated this. "Objective" and "subjective" have nothing to do with "true" and "false," but instead describe, well, you can read the definitions for yourself (see above).
First of all, is "OS 012" the set of rules that you posted earlier in response to my post regarding the game that these good folks are playing? If so, then there is no part of those rules that holds up under scrutiny, logical or otherwise. I've demonstrated this. If you have specific problems with any of my points, then you'll have to argue those points in order to support your claim, because at this juncture it seems like the entire rule set is completely bunk. If you wish to attribute the problems with the rules to minor mistakes, then I submit that, before you publish a list of rules or logical sequence of ideas, that you proof read and double check the list so that it is capable of holding up under scrutiny. However, personally, I do not believe that any number of grammatical and spelling errors, missed phrases, or other minor mistakes in writing could possibly account for the major logical errors in the rules you posted.
If that set of rules you posted is not "OS 012", then why did you post those rules in the first place? What are they? I'm dreadfully curious about that.
Taking 'coupling' to have the standard meaning, you're talking about "OS 012" being both objective and subjective at the same time. Well, this is impossible, by any standard definition of the words "objective" and "subjective." Check the definitions. Here they are, just FYI: objective subjective. Also, if any part of "OS 012" is subjective, then that part is, by definition, in some way disconnected from reality (either by merely lacking in reality, or by having personal bias or personal perception behind it, etc.) So, if any part of "OS 012" is subjective, then it is not consistent with reality, and therefore, by your statement above, the definition is inherently flawed.
Sorry, quoting this twice, but I think this needs to be said. I'm pretty sure that most people here don't care about "OS 012." If we were to ignore it, it would go away. We're not "reactors," and we're not trying to find things to disprove "OS 012." On the contrary, we (most of us, anyway) see problems with "OS 012," and we feel compelled to point out the problems so that you have constructive feedback to either refine the idea, or so that you know to abandon it in favor of other ideas that might work better. If I'm wrong about this, then somebody call me on it, but that's certainly been my motivation.
Wayne
Last edited:
, but, eh, the subject matter is spot on (except maybe for the point about aesthetic expertise, but that wasn't very well defined in the article, so...) I think we've been pretty closely hovering around the definitions that she uses for metaphysical and epistemological objectivity and subjectivity, although there have been some differences. We've been talking mostly about language, so epistemological objectivity and subjectivity have been the focus of our discussions.