Tomasello offers an evolutionary, palaeoanthropological account of the human origin of objects and objectivity. Husserl gives a phenomenological account of the constitution of objects by intersubjectivity. Comparing the two, I claim that Tomasello’s “naturalized” approach closely parallels Husserl’s transcendental approach.

Conceptual engineering is to be explained by appeal to the externalist distinction between concepts and conceptions. If concepts are determined by non-conceptual relations to objective properties rather than by associated conceptions (whether individual or communal), then topic preservation through semantic change will be possible. The requisite level of objectivity is guaranteed by the possibility of collective error and does not depend on a stronger level of objectivity, such as mind-independence or independence from linguistic or social practice more generally. (...) This means that the requisite level of objectivity is exhibited not only by natural kinds, but also by a wide range of philosophical kinds, social kinds and artefactual kinds. The alternative externalist accounts of conceptual engineering offered by Herman Cappelen and Derek Ball fall back into a kind of descriptivism which is antithetical to externalism and fails to recognise this basic level of objectivity. (shrink)

Perceptual malleability and diversity can stem from perceptual learning, expertise, genetics, disease, or accident. Perceptual malleability and diversity force us to reject the claim that perceptual capacities, perceptual experience, and perceptual content are universal across subjects and times. And it casts doubt on the presumption of a universal human perceptual nature. However, it does not directly challenge perceptual objectivity, understood as the claim that one can perceive a world of things and features that are independent from oneself and one's (...) experiences and that could be perceived by other subjects. (shrink)

This paper proposes a structural reconceptualization of scientific objectivity in response to the epistemic fragmentation induced by ultra-specialized scientific practices. Rejecting both foundationalist and relativist paradigms, we define objectivity not as a representational correspondence but as an emergent property of inter-regime structural compatibility. Drawing from topology, category theory, and the theory of constraint regimes, we argue that objectivity arises from the dynamic stabilization and interoperability of heterogeneous epistemic architectures. This account remains epistemological in scope: it does not (...) rely on ontological unity, but instead articulates the conditions under which epistemic systems maintain intelligibility across disciplinary boundaries. (shrink)

Some comments on Quassim Cassam’s Self and World written for a conference at the Institute of Philosophy in 2017. I consider the objection that Cassam raises to Strawson’s argument from unity to objectivity in The Bounds of Sense and raise some general questions about Cassam’s problem of misconception and its application to transcendental arguments.

The growing range of methods for statistical model selection is inspiring new debates about how to handle the potential for conflicting results when different methods are applied to the same data. While many factors enter into choosing a model selection method, we focus on the implications of disagreements among scientists about whether, and in what sense, the true probability distribution is included in the candidate set of models. While this question can be addressed empirically, the data often provide inconclusive results (...) in practice. In such cases, we argue that differences in prior metaphysical views about the local adequacy of the models can produce underdetermination of results, even for the same data and candidate models. As a result, data alone are sometimes insufficient to settle rational beliefs about nature. (shrink)

Papers 1–18 typed the world-side structures of a consistency-constrained information history and, in the fourth triptych, causation, lawhood, and explanation. This paper inverts the program: given only the finite, local, record-mediated access available to an embedded observer, how much of that structure can be reconstructed, under what non-uniqueness, and at what cost? We separate two type-distinct senses of recovery — carrier/information recovery and structural reconstruction — and pose structural reconstruction as an inverse problem governed by a protocol-level forward map (a (...) transcript distribution over whole experiments), a representation-invariant fit rule, and a declared recovery specification. The central negative principle, the No-Global-Decoder Constraint, adds one term to the series' “no global X” sequence: no physically privileged subsystem possesses complete-history access together with a uniquely authoritative decoding map. The central positive result is an elementary but explicit Protocol-Kernel Recovery-Limit Theorem; its value is not mathematical difficulty but the placement of causation, lawhood, explanation, objectivity, and horizon recovery inside one inverse-problem formalism. We distinguish three notions of uniqueness (global, observation-relative, finite-record); show that protocol refinement is monotone while finite-sample compatibility is not; define target-relative correctness through an external adequacy relation to the actual structure; profile recovered structure along the representational, evidential, and corrective objectivity axes of Paper 15; and exhibit the framework on two worked models, a linear-Gaussian structural-causal triple separated in stages by interventions and a conformal-versus-metric spacetime example. We emphasize that, with finite or noisy records, the output of reconstruction is in general not a single equivalence class but a specification-relative compatible set or indistinguishability region, and that no reconstruction certifies its own completeness, uniqueness, or correctness. (shrink)

The analytical notions of ‘thought style’, ‘paradigm’, ‘episteme’ and ‘style of reasoning’ are some of the most popular frameworks in the history and philosophy of science. Although their proponents, Ludwik Fleck, Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault, and Ian Hacking, are all part of the same philosophical tradition that closely connects history and philosophy, the extent to which they share similar assumptions and objectives is still under debate. In the first part of the paper, I shall argue that, despite the fact that (...) these four thinkers disagree on certain assumptions, their frameworks have the same explanatory goal – to understand how objectivity is possible. I shall present this goal as a necessary element of a common project -- that of historicising Kant's a priori. In the second part of the paper, I shall make an instrumental use of the insights of these four thinkers to form a new model for studying objectivity. I shall also propose a layered diagram that allows the differences between the frameworks to be mapped, while acknowledging their similarities. This diagram will show that the frameworks of style of reasoning and episteme illuminate conditions of possibility that lie at a deeper level than those considered by thought styles and paradigm. (shrink)

Truth about matters of fact is objective. This is not just because truth is objective. It is also because facts are objective. An objective fact makes an assertion of that fact true. The objectivity of the fact adds a further element of objectivity to the objective truth of the assertion. True assertions of fact are true because truth is objective and because the facts that make them true are objective. True assertions of fact are objective twice over. Their (...) objectivity is twofold. Or, at least, that is the point I seek to establish here. (shrink)

In earlier chapters, we described debates between objectivists and relativists over methodology in the sciences, and over science and values. We have been led to talk about the role of value judgments in various areas of thought, but in this final chapter we turn more directly to the age – old question of the objectivity of values. Objectivists and relativists populate debate over this question just as we found them populating other questions we have addressed. There is a general, (...) deep – seated worry about ascribing objectivity two things human – centered. Talk of the objectivity of values seems odd in light of any notion of objectivity that draws upon a mind–independence, since values and valuings are so clearly terms of relation with the judgments of valuers. But neither are judgments of value merely subjective if they result in actions likely to affect the interests of others, or if they are responsive to reasons and criticism. (shrink)

This paper examines how scientific articles aim to secure scientific objectivity. It begins by reconstructing the historical and rhetorical context of the research paper as the dominant medium of scientific communication. The central claim is that the paper’s rhetorical-editorial features—IMRaD structure, clarity, suppression of subjectivity, and stylistic flattening— seek to reinforce the credibility and legitimacy of science while also functioning as evaluative criteria within the publish-or-perish regime. The thesis defended is that the conception of the article as an objective (...) vehicle for producing and communicating knowledge has persisted over time and, rather than weakening, has been reinforced by editorial transformations, impact metrics, and movements such as open science, which together consolidate its centrality. The argument is supported by historical cases and theoretical contributions from historians and philosophers of science. (shrink)

The problem of objectivity — how truth can be mind-independent, normatively binding, and genuinely intelligible — has generated three dominant responses: correspondence theories, which struggle to explain the normativity of truth; constructivist and relativist accounts, which dissolve objectivity into cultural or conceptual frameworks; and naturalist theories, which describe cognitive mechanisms without explaining the normative structure those mechanisms are supposed to track. This paper argues that all three fail at the same point: none can account for why reality exhibits (...) coherent, normatively ordered structure in the first place. The paper offers a different approach, grounding objectivity in the metaphysical structure of relation itself. The argument proceeds through a single derivation chain: if anything exists and is intelligible, then relation is the condition of determinacy; if relation grounds being, then the form of relation that sustains coherence, unity, and generativity without collapse is normatively primary; and that form is agápē — non-coercive, self-giving, distinction-preserving relational actuality. On this account, truth is not correspondence between propositions and external facts, nor construction within a conceptual scheme, nor a naturalistic tracking relation. It is correct participation in the real, mind-independent, normatively ordered relational field that constitutes being as such. Objectivity is therefore participatory rather than spectatorial: not a view from nowhere, but alignment with the coherent structure of what is. The paper develops eight structural consequences of this account — objectivity as normative, non-coercive, triadic, communal, dynamic, freedom-compatible, teleological, and existentially thick — and shows in each case that the agápēic account supplies what rival theories require but cannot themselves provide. Three formally developed objections are addressed: relativism, which collapses into self-refutation under pressure; nihilism about normative structure, which undermines the intelligibility it presupposes; and naturalism, which is descriptively powerful but metaphysically incomplete, unable to explain why the patterns it tracks exhibit normative structure at all. The result is a unified metaphysical account of objectivity that is parsimonious — it introduces no explanatory machinery beyond what is already structurally required for determinate, intelligible being — and non-theological, deriving its conclusions entirely from the conditions of relational existence. (shrink)

There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival (...) faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs. (shrink)

Mainstream news journalism [MNJ] faces a practical dilemma founded on a theoretical mistake about objectivity. In this article, we aim to bring this mistake to light and to propose a new model for its practice. MNJ has over the past century attempted to achieve its ultimate democratic goals — informing citizens and holding those in positions of power to account — by adhering to objectivity as a master value. This commitment to objectivity can be specified in terms (...) of principles, such as the principle of reporting ‘just the facts’ without interpretation. But, we argue, taking principles like this one to be maxims that must be followed in every circumstance tends to undermine the democratic goals of MNJ. Practitioners of MNJ therefore face a dilemma: either jettison objectivity as a master value or shirk the pursuit of its ultimate democratic goals. We argue that they should take the former route and, instead, adopt a conception of MNJ as a form of democratic political agency. Under this conception, MNJ aims at informing citizens and holding those in power to account while eschewing the partisan agendas of politicians or advocacy groups. We defend this conception against alternatives, including characterizations of MNJ as mere propaganda and the mistaken conflation of MNJ’s democratic goals with those of so-called activist journalism. In so doing, we try to provide the outlines of a philosophical approach to journalism, a profession that philosophers have largely ignored despite its social importance. (shrink)

This paper develops a constitutive account of ethical objectivity grounded in an account of agency as evaluative resolution. Building on the view that choice consists not in the production of behaviour but in the resolution of competing considerations through the endorsement of reasons, it argues that normativity is unavoidable wherever agency exists. Ethical objectivity does not require stance-independent moral facts, divine command, or cultural preference, but arises from the internal constraints of agency itself: agents cannot resolve without already (...) standing under standards of better and worse reasoning. On this basis, the paper explains responsibility, mitigation, and excuse in terms of the integrity of evaluative resolution rather than the mere occurrence of action. Coercion, impairment, and immaturity compromise agency by distorting reasons or limiting evaluative capacity without eliminating free will altogether. The account preserves ethical objectivity without moral realism, avoids relativism, and clarifies the role of law as institutionalised resolution rather than moral metaphysics. (shrink)

The physiologist Johannes Müller’s doctrine of specific nerve energies had a decisive influence on neo-Kantian conceptions of the objectivity of knowledge in the 1850s - 1870s. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Müller amassed a body of experimental evidence to support his doctrine, according to which the character of our sensations is determined by the structures of our own sensory nerves, and not by the external objects that cause the sensations. Neo-Kantians such as Hermann von Helmholtz, F.A. (...) Lange, and Otto Liebmann took Müller’s doctrine to have far-reaching consequences for their epistemologies. Over the course of the 1850s - 1870s, these three neo-Kantians, each in his own way, argued that reflection on Müller’s doctrine ruled out a certain conception of the objectivity of knowledge. It ruled out the view that knowledge is objective in virtue of affording us information about objects in a mind-independent external world. -/- This paper traces how Helmholtz, Lange, and Liebmann developed their arguments for this view, and how each developed his own alternative conception of objectivity, according to which objectivity has nothing to do with a mind-independent world. Finally, the paper concludes by considering why these arguments modelled on Müller’s doctrine would have been so powerful against rival post-Hegelian conceptions of objectivity, especially those of scientific materialists like Ludwig Büchner. (shrink)

Presents the results of our study comparing two different approaches (those of Goodwin and Darley 2008, and Sarkissian et al. 2011) to empirically measuring people's belief in moral objectivity. Examines the relationship between belief in moral objectivity and two other metaethical attitudes: belief in moral progress and belief in a just world.

This article focuses on epistemic challenges related to the democratisation of scientific knowledge production, and to the limitations of current social accounts of objectivity. A process of ’democratisation’ can be observed in many scientific and academic fields today. Collaboration with extra-academic agents and the use of extra-academic expertise and knowledge has become common, and researchers are interested in promoting socially inclusive research practices. As this development is particularly prevalent in policy-relevant research, it is important that the new, more democratic (...) forms of research be objective. In social accounts of objectivity only epistemic communities are taken to be able to produce objective knowledge, or the entity whose objectivity is to be assessed is precisely such a community. As I argue, these accounts do not allow for situations where it is not easy to identify the relevant epistemic community. Democratisation of scientific knowledge production can lead to such situations. As an example, I discuss attempts to link indigenous oral traditions to floods and tsunamis that happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago. (shrink)

Objectivity has fruitfully been explored in last two decades, manifested by the many studies on ‘objectivity’ in various scientific disciplines. Due to the variety of contexts studied, the focus on...

Much recent philosophy of physics has investigated the process of symmetry breaking. Here, I critically assess the alleged symmetry restoration at the fundamental scale. I draw attention to the contingency that gauge symmetries exhibit, that is, the fact that they have been chosen from an infinite space of possibilities. I appeal to this feature of group theory to argue that any metaphysical account of fundamental laws that expects symmetry restoration up to the fundamental level is not fully satisfactory. This is (...) a symmetry argument in line with Curie’s first principle. Further, I argue that this same feature of group theory helps to explain the ‘unreasonable’ effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and that it reduces the philosophical significance that has been attributed to the objectivity of gauge symmetries. (shrink)

We present experimental evidence that people's modes of social interaction influence their construal of truth. Participants who engaged in cooperative interactions were less inclined to agree that there was an objective truth about that topic than were those who engaged in a competitive interaction. Follow-up experiments ruled out alternative explanations and indicated that the changes in objectivity are explained by argumentative mindsets: When people are in cooperative arguments, they see the truth as more subjective. These findings can help inform (...) research on moral objectivism and, more broadly, on the distinctive cognitive consequences of different types of social interaction. (shrink)

This article explores the potential of Bernard Lonergan’s philosophy of subjectivity as objectivity as a grounding for value sensitive design (VSD) and the design turn in applied ethics. The rapid pace of scientific and technological advancement has created a gap between technical abilities and our moral assessments of those abilities, calling for a reflection on the philosophical tools we have for applying ethics. In particular, applied ethics often presents interconnected problems that require a more general framework for ethical reflection. (...) Lonergan’s philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of selfunderstanding and self‐transcendence in achieving objectivity, can provide a valuable perspective on VSD and the design turn in applied ethics. The article examines how Lonergan’s philosophy can be applied to VSD and the design turn, and how scientific knowledge can be integrated into an ethics of science without reducing it to an external reflection. By adopting Lonergan’s perspective, we can address the ethical challenges arising from scientific and technological advancements while promoting a more holistic approach to applied ethics. (shrink)

This volume of new essays presents groundbreaking interpretations of some of the most central themes of Wittgenstein's philosophy. A distinguished group of contributors demonstrates how Wittgenstein's thought can fruitfully be applied to contemporary debates in epistemology, metaphilosophy and philosophy of language. The volume combines historical and systematic approaches to Wittgensteinian methods and perspectives, with essays providing detailed analysis that will be accessible to students as well as specialists. The result is a rich and illuminating picture of a key figure in (...) twentieth-century philosophy and his continuing importance to philosophical study. (shrink)

This paper is the third in the Principles series of the Defining Philosophy system. It publicly declares "comparison is the necessary condition for definition" as a non- retrogressive operative presupposition, repositions the Distortion Formula as a conceptual model, and replaces the genetic narrative of Habitual Definition with conceptual analysis. For the first time, it systematically engages in dialogue with Kant, Husserl, Quine, Luhmann, and Searle, establishing a translational coordinate system between Defining Philosophy terminology and the aforementioned theories. It directly addresses (...) the core question left unresolved in the second paper, extending the Cross- Verification Theorem to Transgenerational Cross-Verification and naming the Social Definition Assemblage as the ontological counterpart of the Network Layer. It advances the Self-Reflective Closure into a structure for re-analysis, revealing the inevitability that any challenge is ultimately absorbed as a re-analysis of the system itself. Finally, it applies the analytical tools of Defining Philosophy to four classic philosophical problems: the mind-body relation, the nature of intuition, the value of suffering, and the origin of the world. Ultimately, this paper incorporates all self-revisions, philosophical dialogues, and application demonstrations into the analytical framework of Defining Philosophy itself. (shrink)

Detlefsen (1986) reads Hilbert's program as a sophisticated defense of instrumentalism, but Feferman (1998) has it that Hilbert's program leaves significant ontological questions unanswered. One such question is of the reference of individual number terms. Hilbert's use of admittedly "meaningless" signs for numbers and formulae appears to impair his ability to establish the reference of mathematical terms and the content of mathematical propositions (Weyl (1949); Kitcher (1976)). The paper traces the history and context of Hilbert's reasoning about signs, which illuminates (...) Hilbert's account of mathematical objectivity, axiomatics, idealization, and consistency. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show that the account of objective truth taken for granted by logicians at least since the publication in 1933 of Tarski’s “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages” arose out of a tradition of philosophical thinking initiated by Bolzano and Brentano. The paper shows more specifically that certain investigations of states of affairs and other objectual correlates of judging acts, investigations carried out by Austrian and Polish philosophers around the turn of the century, (...) formed part of the background of views that led to standard current accounts of the objectivity of truth. It thus lends support to speculations on the role of Brentano and his heirs in contemporary logical philosophy advanced by Jan Wolenski in his masterpiece of 1989 on the Logic and philosophy in the Lvov-Warsaw School. (shrink)

One main challenge of non-platonist philosophy of mathematics is to account for the apparent objectivity of mathematical knowledge. Cole and Feferman have proposed accounts that aim to explain objectivity through the intersubjectivity of mathematical knowledge. In this paper, focusing on arithmetic, I will argue that these accounts as such cannot explain the apparent objectivity of mathematical knowledge. However, with support from recent progress in the empirical study of the development of arithmetical cognition, a stronger argument can be (...) provided. I will show that since the development of arithmetic is (partly) determined by biologically evolved proto-arithmetical abilities, arithmetical knowledge can be understood as maximally intersubjective. This maximal intersubjectivity, I argue, can lead to the experience of objectivity, thus providing a solution to the problem of reconciling non-platonist philosophy of mathematics with the (apparent) objectivity of mathematical knowledge. (shrink)

Despite so many long held debates, objectivity has become a widely accepted method of practicing journalism in all parts of the world. In journalism, it refers to the reporting or describing of an incident as it is, and it is meant to be neutral as possible, without holding any kind of prejudices. Importantly, it is an achieved quality by a journalist, or a news media outlet. Ironically, many analysts observed that this very objectivity is missing in sports reporting (...) lately. It raises a few questions. Does reporting about sports not call for objectivity? If not, what might be the reasons? Or, is it satisfactory to not be objective in reporting sports? (shrink)

Wright's _Truth and Objectivity_ seeks to systematise a variety of anti-realist positions. I argue that many objections to the system are avoided by transposing its talk of truth into talk of warrant. However, a problem remains about debates involving 'direction-of-fit'. Dummett introduced 'anti-realism' as a philosophical view informed by mathematical intuitionism. Subsequently, the term has been associated with many debates, ancient and modern. _Truth and Objectivity_ proposes that truth admits of different characteristics; these various debates then concern which characteristics truth (...) has, in a given area. This pluralism of truth is at odds with deflationism. I find fault with Wright's argument against deflationism. However, transmission of warrant across the Disquotational Schema suffices to ground Wright's proposal, which survives as a pluralism of classes of warrant. The two main debates concern whether truths are always knowable (Epistemic Constraint) and whether disagreements in an area must be down to some fault of one of those involved (Cognitive Command). I introduce Assertoric Constraint, relating to Epistemic Constraint, where truths cannot outstrip the availability of warrant for their assertion. I solve a structural problem by a comparison with a constitutive analysis of Moore's Paradox. The relativism of blameless disagreement is problematic. Wright's response invokes a sort of ignorance which he calls `Quandary'. I criticise this before proposing an alternative. I agree with Wright that Dummett's original anti-realism does not belong among the positions which Wright seeks to systematise. However, two candidates show that the proposal suffers a weakness. Wright thinks Expressivism misguided, and implicitly rules out his earlier non-cognitivism about necessity. I argue that Expressivism has promise, and I endorse Wright's Cautious Man argument for non-cognitivism about necessity; both involve play with `direction-of-fit'. I conclude that this sort of anti-realist debate needs to be accommodated by the proposal. (shrink)

This dissertation articulates our human capacity to judge as a capacity for knowledge, specifically for empirical knowledge, and for knowledge of itself as such. I interpret and draw on the account of such knowledge presented by Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, situate this account historically, and relate it to relevant contemporary debates. The first chapter motivates my project by assessing the insights and shortcomings of Cartesian epistemology. I argue that while Descartes draws on the essential self-consciousness of judgement to show (...) that the cogito is knowledge, he fails, by his own standards, to secure this status for any judgement beyond the cogito. I conclude that self-consciousness alone is empty, but that, since we can judge beyond the cogito, judgement can be given content from elsewhere. The next chapter evaluates the empiricist doctrine that operations of the senses by themselves give content to judgement and can vindicate it as empirical knowledge. I contend that Kant deepens Hume’s finding, that empiricism fails to enable us to explain empirical knowledge, into the more radical insight that empiricism fails to enable us to understand the senses as providing any content. I conclude that the senses alone are blind and that our account of empirical knowledge must privilege neither sensory givenness nor intellectual self-consciousness. The third chapter contrasts two readings of Kant on the cooperation between sensibility and understanding in empirical knowledge. I argue, against many Kantians, that the Transcendental Deduction shows that instead of understanding this cooperation compositionally – so that operations of sensibility are intelligible independently of acts of the understanding – we must conceive of it hylomorphically – so that the operations of sensibility and understanding constitute the mutually dependent matter and form of empirical knowing respectively. The final chapter substantiates this hylomorphism by explicating the form of knowledge as synthesis. Following Kant, I argue that inference is a species of synthesis and provide a synthetic explanation of inference. The resulting account simultaneously illustrates synthesis, addresses a prominent contemporary problem regarding the nature of inference, and explains how our capacity to know provides not just isolated glimpses of empirical reality, but a unified conception of it. (shrink)

In his recent book, Self-Consciousness and Objectivity: An Introduction to Absolute Idealism, Sebastian Rödl aims to transform our understanding, not only of th.

Indeterminism of quantum mechanics is considered as an immediate corollary from the theorems about absence of hidden variables in it, and first of all, the Kochen – Specker theorem. The base postulate of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr that it studies the system of an investigated microscopic quantum entity and the macroscopic apparatus described by the smooth equations of classical mechanics by the readings of the latter implies as a necessary condition of quantum mechanics the absence of hidden variables, (...) and thus, quantum indeterminism. Consequently, the objectivity of quantum mechanics and even its possibility and ability to study its objects as they are by themselves imply quantum indeterminism. The so-called free-will theorems in quantum mechanics elucidate that the “valuable commodity” of free will is not a privilege of the experimenters and human beings, but it is shared by anything in the physical universe once the experimenter is granted to possess free will. The analogical idea, that e.g. an electron might possess free will to “decide” what to do, scandalized Einstein forced him to exclaim (in a letter to Max Born in 2016) that he would be а shoemaker or croupier rather than a physicist if this was true. Anyway, many experiments confirmed the absence of hidden variables and thus quantum indeterminism in virtue of the objectivity and completeness of quantum mechanics. Once quantum mechanics is complete and thus an objective science, one can ask what this would mean in relation to classical physics and its objectivity. In fact, it divides disjunctively what possesses free will from what does not. Properly, all physical objects belong to the latter area according to it, and their “behavior” is necessary and deterministic. All possible decisions, on the contrary, are concentrated in the experimenters (or human beings at all), i.e. in the former domain not intersecting the latter. One may say that the cost of the determinism and unambiguous laws of classical physics, is the indeterminism and free will of the experimenters and researchers (human beings) therefore necessarily being out of the scope and objectivity of classical physics. This is meant as the “deterministic subjectivity of classical physics” opposed to the “indeterminist objectivity of quantum mechanics”. (shrink)

In this paper I argue in favour of Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's account of objectivity as advocated in the celebrated Second Analogy in Kant's first Critique. The criticism that I am looking at is presented as the first of Schopenhauer's four objections against the Second Analogy deployed in section 23 of his On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Jean Hyppolite describes Hegel’s project in the Phenomenology of Spirit as “the development and formulation of natural consciousness and its progression to science, that is to say, to philosophic knowledge, to knowledge of the absolute” (Hyppolite 1974, 4). This development or progression is the “work of consciousness engaged in experience,” as phenomenal knowledge necessarily leads to absolute knowledge. Thus from the very nature of consciousness one is led toward the absolute, which is both substance as well as subject. This paper (...) will argue that Hegel’s account of the development of consciousness and its progression towards knowledge has certain commonalities with feminist philosophy of science. Frequently, feminist theorists cite Hegel specifically in reference to his discussion of the master/slave relationship, or his discussion of ethics, two sections of the Phenomenology of Spirit in which Hegel explicitly attempts to delineate a role or place for women. Many of these sections do have decidedly antifeminist implications, as has been correctly pointed out by many scholars. Especially in the section on Antigone, where Hegel ascribes the private sphere of life in the home to woman and the public sphere of life in the polis to man, Hegel is clearly unconcerned with the subordination of women, prescribing means of resistance, or finding alternatives to promote the removal of women’s oppression.1 Although Hegel’s political and moral theory does not reflect a feminist perspective, in this paper I will argue that Hegel’s theory of knowledge, the progress towards absolute knowledge described above, has much in common with recent feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. A central implication of this conclusion is that feminist theorists would do well to regard Hegel not merely politically, as an example of another “dead white male” philosopher who participated in the oppression of women; but also epistemologically, as a possible ally in the creation of better theories of knowledge that will regard the experience of culturally situated subjects as important sources of knowledge.2 This conclusion will be argued in two ways. First, I will illustrate how Hegel reconceptualizes the relationship between subject and object, and subject and community, and the related notion of objectivity. This type of objectivity will be shown to be a variety of “dialectical objectivity,” following Allan Megill’s delineation of four senses of objectivity. This reading of Hegelian subject-object relations and objectivity will then be compared to Sandra Harding’s concept of “strong objectivity,” a very similar type of dialectical objectivity which stands as an excellent example of current feminist epistemology and standpoint theory. From this similarity, it will be shown that Hegelian and feminist epistemology have much more in common than previously thought. (shrink)

Arguments pro and contra convergent realism – underdetermination of theory by observational evidence and pessimistic meta-induction from past falsity – are considered. It is argued that, to meet the counter-arguments challenge, convergent realism should be considerably changed with a help of modification of the propositions from this meta-programme “hard core” or “protecting belt”. Two well-known convergent realism rivals – “entity realism” of Nancy Cartwright and Ian Hacking and John Worrall’s “structural realism” – are considered. Entity realism’s main drawback is fundamental (...) laws underestimation. As for structural realism, its limitation of theoretical propositions by pure structural ones is ineffective. One always can transform propositions about objects into propositions about structures and vice versa. Both conceptions are kinds of “metaphysical revisionism” that tries to reformulate the good old convergent realism propositions using more decent language and applying ad hoc modifications of the solutions first obtained within the anti-realist epistemological meta-programmes. It is stated that to overcome the troubles of convergent realism one has to turn from classical or “metaphysical” realism to nonclassical or “internal” one and to coherent theory of truth. Internal realism has no troubles in solving the problem of empirically-equivalent theoretical descriptions and historical meta-induction problem, but gets the problem of scientific knowledge objectivity instead. Where does this objectivity come from? One of the answers is proposed by the scientific knowledge growth model elaborated by Rinat Nugayev and by Peter Galison. Each paradigm is a local viewpoint determined by the peculiarities of a culture into which its creator . was submerged. However, the meeting of the different paradigms leads to their interaction; as a result, the crossbred theoretical objects are constructed. Through these systems the infiltration of one paradigm on the other’s domain takes place. After the old paradigms’ grinding the new ones emerge that reconcile to each other much better than the old ones. Scientific theories reconcile results in elimination of many contingent details. In the process of competition more universal components survive. It is demonstrated that the process of objective knowledge genesis takes place in modern superstring theory too. The list of its drawbacks is rather long; it is clear that the theory cannot pretend on the role of the Theory of Everything. Nevertheless the process of argumentation pro and contra convergent realism – underdetermination of theory by observational evidence and pessimistic meta-induction from past falsity – are considered. It is argued that, to meet the counter-arguments challenge, convergent realism should be considerably changed with a help of modification of the propositions from this meta-programme “hard core” or “protecting belt”. It is stated that to overcome the troubles of convergent realism one has to turn from classical or “metaphysic” of quantum field theory and general relativity interpenetration have already begun. (shrink)

This paper, written in Romanian, compares fictionalism, nominalism, and neo-Meinongianism as responses to the problem of objectivity in mathematics, and then motivates a fictionalist view of objectivity as invariance.

The tension between subjectivity and objectivity is one of the central problems of epistemology. Most proposals approach it as a duality: two opposing poles, where what is not one is the other. This paper proposes a different and more precise path. The starting point is the definition of consciousness as the objectification of one’s own thought (Iguiniz Agesta, 2026a) and the epistemological sequence that leads to the notion of objectivity as possibility (Iguiniz Agesta, 2026b). By articulating these two (...) proposals, this paper shows that between them and before them, three territories with their own identity are delimited. The first is unconsciousness: thought that operates without objectifying itself, as pure activity prior to any self-attention. The second is subjectivity: consciousness that does not recognize its perspective as a personal perspective. The third is objectivity: the openness to the search for a reality that transcends any individual perspective, including one’s own. Between the three territories, two independent thresholds are drawn: crossing the first does not guarantee crossing the second. The position of each subject with respect to the three territories is an individual and variable topology, by domains and by moments. From the independence between the two thresholds derives a structural asymmetry: to the extent that a subject has not crossed a threshold in a given domain, they do not experience that absence as absence, but as normality. (shrink)

ArgumentIn the United States, scientific knowledge is brought before the courts by way of testimony – the testimony of scientific experts. We argue that this expertise is best understoodfirstas related to the quality of the underlying scienceand thenin terms of who delivers it. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA), a contemporary forensic science, serves as the vaulting point for our exploration of objectivity as a metric for the quality of a science in judicial contexts. We argue that BPA fails to meet (...) the minimal standard set by Helen Longino’s social-procedural account of objectivity (1990, 2002). In light of some pressing issues for social-procedural accounts, we offer an infrastructural account of objectivity. This account offers what amounts to a friendly amendment to Longino’s account and adds to the ways in which we might analyze social-procedural objectivity. Finally, we address an issue that is pressing in the legal context: given that scientific knowledge is delivered by individuals, not communities, at least in U.S. courts, we (may) need a way to evaluate individual scientific and epistemic agents. We suggest a means for making this evaluation that is derived from our infrastructural account of objectivity. (shrink)

This is a comment on Professor Holm Tetens' paper, 'Scientific Objectivity with a Human Face'.

Ideas on meaning, rules and mathematical proofs abound in Wittgenstein’s writings. The undeniable fact that they are present together, sometimes intertwined in the same passage of Philosophical Investigations or Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, does not show, however, that the connection between these ideas is necessary or inextricable. The possibility remains, and ought to be checked, that they can be plausibly and consistently separated. I am going to examine two views detectable in Wittgenstein’s works: one about proofs, the other (...) about meaning and rules. The first is the denial of the objectivity of proof. The second is a conception of meaning stemming from the rule-following considerations. I shall argue that, though Wittgenstein seems to conjoin the two views, they can be, and should be, separated1. (shrink)

The present article aims to investigate the status of Categories as conceptualized in Salomon Maimon’s Essay on Transcendental Philosophy. Although this topic has garnered less scholarly attention than Maimonian skepticism, or his theory of differentials, yet it is central to evaluating Maimon’s recasting of Critical philosophy. To justify this interpretative line, the paper first reconstructs the most significant inquiries into Categories within the Essay (Introduction and § 1). Following this analytical overview, the article shows a link between Maimon’s conception of (...) Categories and the demand for a new logic of objectivity. Specifically, we address Maimon’s requirement for a complete system of the Categories (§2). Finally, we demonstrate how Maimon’s transformation of transcendental logic constitutively affects the status of Categories from logical and ontological standpoints (§3). These analyses evaluate Maimon’s place in the history of post-Kantian philosophy (Conclusion), presenting him both as a Kantian respondent and as an autonomous thinker. (shrink)

According to Helen Longino, objectivity is necessarily social as it depends on critical interactions in com- munity. Justin Biddle argues that Longino’s account presupposes individuals that are completely open to any criticism; as such individuals are in principle able to criticise their beliefs on their own, Longino’s account is not really social. In the first part of my paper I argue that even for completely open individuals, criticism for maintaining objectivity is only possible in community. In the second (...) part I question Biddle’s interpretation of Longino’s conception of the individual. I conclude that objectivity as Longino describes it is necessarily social. (shrink)

In 1951 John Rawls expressed these convictions about the fundamental issues in metaethics: [T]he objectivity or the subjectivity of moral knowledge turns, not on the question whether ideal value entities exist or whether moral judgments are caused by emotions or whether there is a variety of moral codes the world over, but simply on the question: does there exist a reasonable method for validating and invalidating given or proposed moral rules and those decisions made on the basis of them? (...) For to say of scientific knowledge that it is objective is to say that the propositions expressed therein may be evidenced to be true by a reasonable and reliable method, that is, by the rules and procedures of what we may call "inductive logic"; and, similarly, to establish the objectivity of moral rules, and the decisions based upon them, we must exhibit the decision procedure, which can be shown to be both reasonable and reliable, at least in some cases, for deciding between moral rules and lines of conduct consequent to them.1 In this passage Rawls reconfigured the issue of moral objectivity and so reoriented the practice of metaethics from linguistic analysis to rational methodology. In so doing, his work has provided inspiration to philosophers as disparate in normative views as Thomas Nagel,2 Richard Brandt3, Alan Gewirth4, and David Gauthier.5 Rawls replaced the Moorean question, Do moral terms refer? with the Rawlsian question, Can moral judgments be the outcome of a rational and reliable procedure? He later gave a resoundingly positive answer to this question6 and later still, a more tentative one.7 Rawls' considered qualification of his earlier enthusiasm about the extent to which moral philosophy could be "part of the theory of rational choice"8 is a tribute to the seriousness with which he took his critics' objections. (shrink)