Nature of Subjectivity and Objectivity:

Subjectivity and Objectivity:

All our knowledge and experience can be classified into only two categories i.e. subjectivity and objectivity. So we should try to determine and analyze the exact nature of both these categories:

Subjectivity:

Subjectivity basically is a ‘personal opinion’ which can also be considered as ‘personal feeling’ or ‘personal conclusion’ which is based on ‘personal information’. For example, if in my opinion (or assessment), Mr. Ali is a poor student of M.Com class, it is in fact my personal feeling about him because according to some one else’s assessment, who knows Mr. Ali in a different perspective, he may have a positive assessment about Mr. Ali and he may consider Mr. Ali a brilliant student of M.Com class. This positive assessment of that other person about Mr. Ali is also his personal feeling. In this way my personal feeling (or personal conclusion based on personal information), and that other person’s personal feeling (or personal conclusion) are different about a single issue.

Objectivity:

The knowledge or information that Mr. Ali is B.Com qualified is objective in nature. No subjective difference in opinion about this particular issue can arise in ordinary situations. We can see Mr. Ali’s B.Com degree certificate and we also can verify this degree certificate from the issuing university. The degree certificate and the act of verification of that degree certificate are the ‘objective evidences’ in this case. In the case of objectivity, we have an external and independent ‘object’, which can ‘verify’ the truth-value of the objective information or statement. In this case, the degree certificate is the ‘external object’. To ‘verify’ whether or not Mr. Ali is B.Com qualified, we can resort to this ‘external object’. In the case of ’subjectivity’, the personal opinion is based on ‘personal information’. Only the person who is having that personal opinion knows the contents of this ‘personal information’. In the case of ‘objectivity’, on the other hand, the objective information is based on some ‘external object’ or some ‘external event’. In the case of ’subjectivity’, the contents of personal information, on which the subjective opinion was based, were known only to the person who held that subjective opinion whereas in the case of objectivity, the ‘external object’ (or event) on which the objective information is based, can be known to everyone whoever himself wants to verify the objective statement. In the case of an objective statement, there is an underlying assumption about the existence of some ‘external object’ that can verify the truth-value of that objective statement. Whoever is interested in knowing the truth-value of an objective statement, can resort to that ‘external object’ for this purpose. For example the statement asserting that ‘Mr. Ali is B.Com qualified’, has an underlying assumption that a degree certificate (i.e. an external object) exists that can verify the ‘claim’ that ‘Mr. Ali is B.Com qualified’. The important characteristic of the ‘external object’ is that its existence, as well as its capability to verify the objective statement is ‘knowable’ to everyone whoever is interested to get the objective statement verified by himself. On the other hand, in the case of a subjective opinion, any such ‘external object’ does not exist that can support the truth-value of that subjective opinion. It is not that the subjective opinion is supported by nothing. Any ‘external object’ does not support subjective opinions. But however, subjective opinions are supported by the ‘personal information’ of the person who held that subjective opinion. So we can say that subjective opinions are supported by ‘internal information’. The important characteristic of the ‘internal information’ is that its existence, as well as its capability to verify the truth-value of the subjective information is not knowable to everyone whoever is interested to get the truth value of the subjective opinion verified by himself.

In the case of objective statements, it is easy matter to convince others about the truth-value of the statement. Just show before others the supporting ‘external object’ and let others verify by themselves the existence as well as the capability to verify the truth-value of the objective statement, of that ‘external object. Since the existence and the capability to verify the objective statement, of the ‘external object’ is ‘knowable’ to others so others can verify the truth-value of the objective statement by themselves. To convince others, about the truth-value of subjective opinions, however, is not an easy task. The subjective opinion is supported by the ‘internal information’. The existence as well as the capability to verify the truth-value of the subjective opinion, of the ‘internal information’ is not knowable to everyone whoever is to be made convinced about the truth-value of the subjective opinion. To make others convinced about my subjective opinions, for instant, first of all I will have to show to others, the ‘existence’ and the ‘capability to verify the truth value of those subjective opinions’ of my ‘internal information’. In ordinary conditions, my ‘internal information’ and it’s whatever characteristics and capabilities are not knowable to others. So in order to make others convinced about my subjective opinions, either I have to convert those subjective opinions into objective facts through the successful application of scientific methodology upon my subjective ideas or I have to make others ‘known’ of the existence and the capabilities to verify the subjective opinions, of my ‘internal information’. In first situation where I first converted the subjective opinion into an objective fact, through the successful application of the scientific methodology, here I have not convinced others about my subjective opinions. Here actually I have made others convinced about the objective facts. In second situation where I made others ‘known’ about the convincing capabilities of my ‘internal information’, only in this situation I have made others convinced about the truth-value of my subjective opinions. In this case, all persons who know, along with me, about the convincing capabilities of my ‘internal information’, can be considered as such a class of persons who actually share same kind of ‘internal information’. Since this class of persons shares the same ‘internal information’, so this ‘internal information’, for the members of this class of persons, can be regarded as the ‘objective evidence’ in support of the truth-value of the opinion. The opinion also, for the members of this class of persons, is objective in nature. But for other people, the ‘internal information’ is un-known and the opinion is subjective. It can be concluded that the nature of ‘objective evidence’ may not always be in the form of some ‘external object’ because in case where same nature of ‘internal information’ is commonly shared by a class of persons, that ‘commonly shared’ information can be regarded as ‘objective evidence’, but only for the members of that class of persons.

We have seen that there usually arise differences in opinions in case of subjectivity whereas objectivity, for the most part is free of differences in opinions. The presence of differences in opinions, in the case of subjectivity is due to the fact that, for example, subjective opinion of a person ‘A’ would be based on his own ‘internal information’. In the same way the subjective opinion of another person ‘B’ would also be based on his own ‘internal information’. It is quite obvious that both these persons would be having their own unique life experiences so their respective ‘internal information’ cannot be same in all aspects because the ‘internal information’ for both these persons would be the result of their respective ‘unique’ life experiences. Keeping in view this obvious fact in mind, differences between the ‘internal information’ in case of any two persons can be considered as quite a routine matter. We can consider ‘subjective opinion’ as the ‘expressed’ manifestation of ‘internal information’. In other words, a subjective opinion, in case of a person can be considered to be that portion of this person’s ‘internal information’, which has been expressed by him either verbally or in written form. It should be noted that certain ‘objective facts’ also can be a part of this person’s ‘internal information’ but in this context we are not talking about those sets (portions) of ‘internal information’, which are based on some ‘objective evidence’. So as a result of having considered this factor also, and at the same time, trying to be more precise, we can identify main components of ‘internal information’ which may be considered to be (i) objective facts, (ii) personal observations and experiences and; (iii) conclusions which have been derived out of ‘personal observations and experiences’. Now consider that if the person expresses, whether verbally or in written form, those ‘objective facts’ that were also the part of his ‘internal information’, then in this case, the expression of those ‘objective facts’ would not be considered to be the ‘subjective opinion’ of that person. The second component of the ‘internal information’ consists of ‘personal observations and experiences’. These ‘personal observations and experiences’ basically are the attributes of only that person who himself had ‘observed’ or ‘experienced’ them. These ‘personal observations and experiences’, however are capable to be communicated to others. That person can ‘describe’ his own ‘personal observations and experiences’, whether verbally or in written form. Description of those ‘personal observations and experiences’ by that person also cannot be considered to be the subjective opinions of that person. It is due to the fact that whether that person actually ‘observed’ or ‘experienced’ what he describes is objectively verifiable. ‘Objective evidence’ in this case can be an eyewitness or can be in the form of any other evidence such as photographs or video filming of the event under question etc. In case where no such ‘objective evidence’ is available, even then the description of ‘personal observations and experiences’ cannot be considered as any ‘subjective opinion’ of that person. Description of ‘personal observations and experiences’ is basically a factual type of information. It is not the ‘personal feeling’ or ‘personal conclusion’ of that person. This type of ‘factual statement’ actually is the description of some (external) ‘event’. This event however may not always be ‘external’. In case a person describes his own dream etc., it can be considered that he is describing some ‘internal event’. Descriptions of external events mostly can be supported by appropriate objective evidences. Sometimes however, appropriate evidence that can support the information/ description of external event may not be available. Similarly the description of ‘internal events’ usually cannot be supported by appropriate objective evidence. In these two types of situations where some (internal or external) event cannot be proved to have been occurred are the typical situations where others cannot know the ‘existence’ of ‘internal information’.

Any ‘objective evidence’ cannot support this type of ‘internal information’ but still the ‘possibility’ of the occurrence of those events (i.e. part of internal information) can be ‘rationally verified’ by others. We shall discuss this concept of ‘rational verification’ at some appropriate later stage. Here at this point, we are to decide whether we should consider description of those external or internal events (i.e. parts of internal information) that cannot be supported by any objective evidence due to the non-availability of any such evidence, as objective or not. In my opinion, we should consider them objective due to the reasons that (i) these are ‘factual type’ information. The event in question did ‘objectively occurr’ or ‘did not objectively occurr’, (ii) The judgment about the ‘possibility’ of occurrence of such events can be formed through the application of ‘rational verification’, (iii) descriptions of external or internal events may be ‘objectively non-verifiable’ under these conditions but however such descriptions actually do not represent ‘personal feelings’ or ‘personal conclusions’ etc. but have the intention to represent some ‘objective’ event. The only thing is that ‘objective evidence’ is not available under these conditions, (iv) for example consider a job interview where only one interviewer and one candidate were present in the interview room. The interviewer asked certain questions from the candidate which did the candidate not properly answer. Now consider that only the interviewer knows the ‘fact’ that particular questions were not properly answered by the candidate and so he, in this case cannot provide any ‘objective evidence’ in support of this ‘fact’. This non-provable ‘fact’, in this case, cannot be considered as the ‘subjective opinion’ of the interviewer. This may be regarded as the example of non-verifiable ‘factual information’, which, just due to its non-verifiability cannot be considered ‘subjective’ in nature. Now suppose that the interviewer, on the basis of his ‘internal information’ (i.e. the same non-verifiable ‘factual information’) concludes that the candidate is not suitable for the job. This conclusion drawn by the interviewer is the typical example of ‘personal feeling’ or ‘personal conclusion based on personal information’. So the conclusion that ‘candidate is not suitable for job’ is ‘subjective’ in nature because it is the ‘personal conclusion based on personal information’. Also note that this ‘personal conclusion based on personal information’ which has been considered ‘subjective’ in nature falls in the category of third component of ‘internal information’ that we already identified in previous discussion. In this way we have seen that out of total three components of ‘internal information’, it is only the third one which, if expressed verbally or in writing, can be considered as a ‘subjective opinion’. It is also noticeable that the third component of ‘internal information’, which is ‘subjective’ in nature, has been ‘derived’ out of second component of ‘internal information’, which is objective. In the above quoted example, interviewer’s personal observation or experience was that the candidate did not properly handle certain questions that were put to him during the interview. This was ‘factual information’ and was objective in nature. But the conclusion that ‘candidate is not suitable for the job’, which has been derived out of that objective ‘factual information’ has been considered ‘subjective’ in nature. Now consider another same type of job interview where same candidate properly handled the questions put to him by another interviewer. Here the ‘factual information’ (i.e. second component of ‘internal information’ of this new interviewer) is that the candidate did properly handle the questions that were put to him during the interview. This new interviewer, on the basis of ‘second component’ of his own ‘internal information’ draws the conclusion that ‘candidate is suitable for job’. This conclusion is the ‘third component’ of the ‘internal information’ of that new interviewer and so this conclusion is ‘subjective’ in nature. When this conclusion shall be expressed in written or verbal form, by this new interviewer, it shall become his ‘subjective opinion’.

We have seen, in the above mentioned discussion that there was difference in opinions of both the interviewers about a single candidate. One of the interviewers considered the candidate not suitable for job whereas the other one considered the same candidate as suitable for appointment on same nature job. The difference in opinions was due to the fact that there was difference in the respective ‘second component’ of the ‘internal information’ of both the interviewers and the difference in the ‘second component of internal information’ was due the unique observations and experiences of both of them.

We can further investigate for to find out still deeper cause of differences in the subjective opinions. We know that there are mainly three components of ‘internal information’. The first component consists of those objective facts that happened to be part of ‘internal information’ also. We also can derive ‘personal conclusions’ out of those ‘objective facts’ which form a portion of our ‘internal information’. It is apparent that usually there would arise no difference in opinions as far as we describe those ‘objective facts’ or whatever valid ‘deductive conclusions’ that we may derive out of those objective facts. It is due to the fact that a valid deductive conclusion which is derived out of an ‘objective fact’ will also be another ‘objective fact’ and it is due to the fact that a valid deduction is one where it is impossible for the derived information to be false if the given information (i.e. out of which information such derivation was made) was true. Objective facts may not be true also; in real sense, (we shall explain this point at some later stage) but objective facts however, at least shall be ‘considered to be true’ by others. So a valid deduction which is made out of such a fact which is ‘considered to be true’ by others, would also be (i.e. valid deductive conclusion) considered to be true by others. So the description of first component of ‘internal information’ (including valid personal deductions out of commonly known objective facts), which is already considered to be true by us, shall also be considered to be true by others. It means that under normal circumstances there can be no difference in opinions as far as the description of ‘first component’ (including valid deductions there from) of ‘internal information’ is concerned. Now come to the description of ‘second component’ of internal information. We know that the description of the ‘second component’ of ‘internal information’ cannot be considered as ‘opinion’ but should be regarded as ‘factual type information’. It is however possible, as we already know that two persons can ‘perceive’ a single event in quite different manners. As a result, one of the persons would give the ‘opinion’ that the event actually occurred in one particular way while the other person would be having the ‘opinion’ that the event in question happened in another particular way. This is actually not the case of difference in opinions. Here in this case both persons are actually describing different aspects of a single event. A single person cannot perceive all the aspects of the observed situation. One person can perceive, however certain aspects of the situation while at the same time, another person can perceive some other aspects which were not covered by the first person. It is just like difference in ‘opinions’ regarding the color of the sides of one shield where first person was on one side of the shield and the second person was on the other side and there was difference in the color of both sides. So the actual situation of the previous example would not be that one of the persons gives ‘opinion’ that event occurred in one particular way while the other one giving the ‘opinion’ that the event in question actually occurred in another particular way. The actual situation would be that one of the persons would ‘describe’ (i.e. would not be giving the ‘opinion’) some particular aspects of the event and similarly the other person also would ‘describe’ some other particular aspects of the same event. In this way both the persons actually would be getting different types of ‘second component’ of the ‘internal information’. In the next step, these two persons shall draw conclusions out of newly formed ‘second component’ of ‘internal information’. These conclusions, which are to be derived out of ‘second component ‘of’ internal information of both the persons, would be subjective in nature and shall be different from one another. This difference in ‘subjective conclusions’ would be due to the difference in the source information (i.e. respective second component of internal information of both the persons) out of which these conclusions are to be derived. We have seen that neither of the persons perceived all the aspects of the situation/ event in question. One of the persons ‘perceived’ only some particular aspects of the situation/ event whereas the other person ‘perceived’ some other particular aspects of the situation/ event under review. In this way actually both the persons commonly perceived some of the aspects of situation/ event, some aspects were perceived only by the one of the persons and some other aspects were perceived only by the other person but none of both the persons perceived all the aspects of the situation/ event in question. In this way actually both the persons acquired incomplete information about the real situation/ event etc. So the second component of internal information in case of both the persons was incomplete because no one covered all the aspects of the situation/ event in question. As a result, the conclusions, which are to be derived in the next step, would be based on incomplete relevant information in case of both the persons.

It should be considered that the accuracy level of the subjective conclusions would depend on (i) accuracy and completeness of the second component of internal information and; (ii) that whether those subjective conclusions have been ‘validly’ derived out of that second component of internal information or not. To put it differently, we can say that subjective conclusions, usually are subject to two types of errors/ inaccuracies which are; (i) ‘valid’ conclusion derived but out of incomplete or inaccurate second component of internal information and/ or; (ii) ‘invalid’ conclusions derived out of incomplete/ inaccurate or even out of complete/ accurate second component of internal information. For the sake of our analysis, we can assume that people usually get ‘accurate’ (i.e. limited but accurate) second component of internal information. We also can assume that people do not derive ‘invalid’ conclusions out of the ‘accurate’ second component of internal information. But due to practical reasons we can not assume however that people usually get ‘complete’ second component of internal information. So practically, most of the ‘subjective conclusions’ have to be inaccurate because even a ‘valid’ conclusion derived out of ‘incomplete’ source information cannot guarantee the accuracy/ truth of the conclusion so drawn. We must understand that this type of inaccuracy has to be a permanent feature as for as most of our routine subjective conclusions are concerned. It is also important to note that the derivation of this type of ‘inaccurate subjective conclusions’ does not matter at all as long as we avoid converting these ‘inaccurate’ subjective conclusions into the shape of ‘inaccurate subjective opinions’ by expressing them verbally or in written form. Accuracy of ‘subjective conclusions’ is actually not important to consider. The important thing to consider is the accuracy of ‘subjective opinions’. We have seen that most of our ‘subjective conclusions’ have to be inaccurate due to the fact that such conclusions, usually have to be based on incomplete second component of internal information. This incompleteness of the second component of internal information would be due to those limitations/ shortcomings of our perception system due to which one person cannot ‘perceive’ all the related aspects of the situation/ event in question. Since we cannot perceive all the aspects of the situation/ event etc. so our second component of internal information shall remain incomplete in this way and then whatever conclusions we shall derive out of this incomplete second component of internal information, those conclusions would not be considered accurate because even a valid conclusion, but derived out of incomplete source information cannot give the guarantee of accuracy/ truth of the conclusion so drawn. We have seen earlier that just to keep these types of inaccurate subjective conclusions does not have any material impacts but to express these inaccurate subjective conclusions in the form of opinions, or to take decisions on the basis of these inaccurate subjective conclusions may have corresponding (usually negative) material effects. But if our subjective conclusions have to be inaccurate due to the limitations/ shortcomings of our perception systems then it seems that we will have to express inaccurate subjective opinions in all the situations and also all our decisions based on subjective information/ conclusions have to be wrong etc. Fortunately it is not true however. We can form inaccurate subjective conclusions inside our mind but we are not bound to express only those inaccurate subjective conclusions in the form of opinions. Our subjective opinions actually can be more accurate than those subjective conclusions. It is due to the fact that up till now we have not considered the role of analytical activities in the process of the formation of second component of internal information. We cannot perceive all the aspects of the situation/ event in question but we are able to ‘know’ about that much aspects of the situation/ event etc. that may be sufficient for to arrive at as much better conclusions as may be considered ‘accurate’ for practical reasons. We can ‘know’ about ‘maximum understandable’ aspects of the situation/ event as a result of proper analysis of the situation under review.

We can elaborate the process of analytical activities with the help of example. Suppose two persons, ‘A’ and ‘B’ perceive a particular event. In this case neither of these persons would have perceived all the aspects of that event. Person ‘A’ would have perceived a few of the aspects and person ‘B’ would have perceived another few aspects of that event. Some of the aspects of the event would have been commonly perceived by both the persons, some of the aspects would have been perceived by only ‘A’ and some other aspects would have been perceived by only ‘B’. In this way both the persons would get incomplete second component of internal information. In the next process both persons can draw conclusions out of incomplete second component of internal information. Suppose both persons actually draw their subjective conclusions out of their respective incomplete second component of internal information. Now suppose that person ‘A’ is an analytical minded person whereas person ‘B’ does not have proper analytical sense. With having analytical mind, person ‘A’ shall not, at this stage, express his (based on incomplete information) subjective conclusion in the form of subjective opinion and/ or shall not take decision on the basis of that subjective conclusion. Person ‘B’ due to not having proper analytical sense may prove to be hasty in the expression of those subjective opinions which shall be based on that (based on incomplete information) subjective conclusion. He may also, at this stage, take decisions which shall be based on that subjective conclusion. We already have seen that the approach which is followed by person ‘B’ cannot give the guarantee of the accuracy of those opinions and decisions etc.

Now come to see what person ‘A’ would do in order to ensure better accuracy level of his subjective conclusions and decisions. We know that person ‘A’ is an analytical minded person and we have seen that he did not hastily express his subjective conclusion in the form of subjective opinion. Also he avoided taking hasty decision based on incomplete second component of internal information. Actually he knows that expression of subjective opinion and/ or taking decisions on the basis of incomplete second component of internal information may lead to material (usually negative) consequences. He also knows that just to draw ‘subjective conclusions out of incomplete second component of internal information have no such material consequences. The drawing of this type of subjective conclusions however, as he knows, is important because these conclusions shall be taken up as input for his analytical activities. The objective before this person is to get the information about the ‘maximum understandable’ aspects of the event under review, through his analytical activities, in order to ensure the better accuracy level of his subjective conclusions and decisions. How can he get information about ‘maximum understandable’ aspects of that event? We know that he himself has ‘perceived’ some of the aspects of that event. He also has derived his subjective conclusion on the basis of his own (limited) perceived information. The other thing, which he knows, is that some other persons also have perceived some those aspects of that event which he himself could not perceive. He can get information about those aspects of that event by positively considering other persons’ point of view on the issue. So this much information about that event is available to this person and he has to initiate his analytical activities on the basis of this same information.

We know that (i.e. we already have explained the concept of ‘analysis’ in another section of this thesis) analytical operations are performed on already available information in order to: (i) ensure the consistency within the available information and; (ii) to ensure the compliance of that ‘analyzed’ internally consistent information with the real situation.

Now this person has to actually perform analytical operations on his available information. He already has information about (i) his own perceived aspects, (ii) other persons’ perceived aspects; because he also has positively considered other persons’ point of view on the issue, (iii) his own subjective conclusions and; (iv) other persons subjective conclusions; because he has listen to other persons’ opinions as well.

It is quite understandable that due to the involvement of other people’s points of view and opinions etc. the available information may have various internal contradictions. Differences in points of view and opinions would be the main source of those contradictions. To ensure the consistency within this available information would require the removal of those contradictions. Contradictions due to differences in opinions etc. can be removed through efficient and proper application of rational verifications upon contradictory opinions. The other source of contradictions would be those ‘missing’ information, which was perceived by none of the persons. Person ‘A’ can make judgment about the kind and nature of that ‘missing’ information as a result of those rational verifications as well as through other types of rational analysis. We shall explain both the concepts of ‘rational verification’ and ‘rational analysis’ later on in other appropriate section of this thesis. In this way, person ‘A’ would ensure the internal consistency of the available information about the situation/ phenomenon in questions. In the second phase of his analytical activities, Mr. ‘A’ will focus on to get surety about the consistency of the ‘internally consistent available information’ with the real situation. As we know that Mr. ‘A’ already perceived the situation/ phenomenon by himself. It may seem at first instance that Mr. ‘A’ actually does not need to again directly observe the situation/ phenomenon in question in order to ensure the consistency of the ‘internally consistent available information’ with the real situation. But however at this point, Mr. ‘A’ would need to again directly observe the phenomenon in question. No doubt he already observed the phenomenon but as we have seen, he perceived, at that time only limited aspects of that phenomenon. Now when, as a result of the first phase of his analytical activities, he has acquired information about other aspects of the situation/ phenomenon also, he has become able to observe the same situation/ phenomenon in more comprehensive way and so has become able to ‘perceive’ some those extra aspects of the situation/ phenomenon that were not perceived by him or even by any other person.

Subjective/ Objective Statements:

Subjective/ Objective Statements:

Up till now, we have mainly discussed only one form of objectivity, which is the objective statement. Objectivity however may also exist in the form of “objective principles” as well as in the form of “objective tendencies”. Subjectivity also may exist in the form of “subjective tendencies”. These forms of objectivity and subjectivity have been discussed on relevant links. Here we should focus on the nature of objective statements and how they differ from subjective statements. For this purpose, consider the following situation where two persons are having two opposite subjective opinions on a single issue:

Subjective opinion of person ‘A’ about Mr. Ali that, “Mr. Ali is brilliant student in the class”:

This person’s positive feelings are based on his long-term interactions with Mr. Ali. Mr. Ali mostly has performed well before this person so that the person concluded that Mr. Ali is brilliant student.

Subjective opinion of person ‘B’ about Mr. Ali is that, “Mr. Ali is a poor student in the class”:

The negative feelings of Mr. B about Mr. Ali are based on his relatively limited interaction with Mr. Ali - Mr. Ali could not answer certain particular questions asked by Mr. B. So Mr. B concluded that Mr. Ali is a poor student.

In this case situation, both person’s separate and opposite conclusions about Mr. Ali’s brilliance are based on their respective separate sets of information (i.e. different ‘internal information’) about Mr. Ali. These subjective conclusions are subjective in nature.

o In such a case, the objective statement can be that ‘Mr. Ali got grade-B in final examinations.’ This statement is not subjective. His grades can be checked from University’s record.

o To say that despite having good grades, Mr. Ali, in fact is a poor student - is subjective statement, which is based on one’s personal interactions with Mr. Ali.

o To say that grade-B is not good grade is also subjective statement because in someone other’s opinion, grade-B may be a good grade.

o But if grade-B is good grade as per the officially declared policy of the University, then to say that grade-B is a good grade is an objective statement and to say that grade-B is a bad grade, is objectively inaccurate statement.

o To say that Mr. Ali has secured grade-B is an objectively verifiable statement or simply an objective statement. If it is verified that Mr. Ali in fact, has secured grade-B, then it becomes an objective fact. But on such objective verification, if it comes out that Mr. Ali in fact, has not secured grade-B, then to say that Mr. Ali has secured grade-B is objectively inaccurate statement.

o To say that Mr. Ali has secured grade-C, is also objectively verifiable information. As per the results of such verification, if it comes that Mr. Ali in fact has secured grade-B, then to say that ‘Mr. Ali has secured grade-C’ is objectively inaccurate statement.

o To say that Mr. Ali in fact is more brilliant, he actually deserved grade-A and grade-B does not justify his great brilliance - such a statement is also subjective in nature.

o If Mr. A says that, “Mr. Ali is a good student”. In this case, the statement that ‘Mr. Ali is a good student’ is subjective in nature but the ‘fact’ that ‘Mr. A says this’, is objective because we can ask and verify from Mr. A whether he consider Mr. Ali to be good student or not.

o To say that Mr. Ali in fact is so poor a student and he has been awarded grade-B (i.e. a good grade) due to some mistake of the examining body. This is also subjective feeling. If examining body’s mistake is objectively provable then this becomes an objectively verifiable information. And if that suspected mistake is finally objectively proved to have been occurred then this becomes an objective fact that Mr. Ali did not performed as well as to be awarded grade-B.

o An objective ‘fact’ can be misleading also. In the above mentioned point, if Mr. Ali was in fact a poor student and due to some mistake by the examining body, he acquired grade-B (i.e. a good grade), and that mistake is not objectively verifiable then in fact Mr. Ali did not deserve grade-B. In this case, if we base our decisions on this ‘objective fact’ that Mr. Ali acquired a good grade, then this ‘objective fact’ actually has been a misleading input for our decision. Such a situation shows the potential importance of subjectivity. This fact also opens a valid possibility of preferring subjective information to objective ‘facts’ for certain decisions. It also means that objective facts can be true or false. So ‘truth’ is a different thing and ‘objectivity’ is different thing. Subjective information can be (but not always) true irrespective of the fact whether or not it is objectively verifiable, as has been described in the above mentioned example where examining body’s mistake was non-verifiable. It means that some metaphysics theories may be true also.

Difference between truth and objective fact in this case:

A statement if successfully verified to be ‘true’ becomes an objective ‘fact’. To be verified to be ‘true’, in this case means only that the ‘external object’ confirms whatever is stated in the objective statement. The meaning of the ‘objective fact’ is only that it is in agreement with whatever is shown by the ‘external object’. The ‘external object’ here, however, may not be in agreement with the reality. So the ‘objective fact’, which is in agreement with the ‘external object’, may not be in agreement with the reality. If, however, the ‘external object’ is in agreement with the reality, then the ‘objective fact’ also shall be in agreement with the reality. Under these conditions, ‘objective fact’ and ‘truth’ shall be same. In this discussion, we have used the term ‘truth’ in limited sense. Here, we are not talking about all the universal truths that may not be known or not even knowable to humanity. We are talking about only those truths that are knowable to humanity. In fact we are analyzing ‘truth’ from the point of view of humanity i.e. what has been taken as ‘true’ by the humans. So we can define truth, in this context, as those human understandings that are in agreement with the reality. Since all the human understandings do not cover all the realities, so the realities that are still outside the scope of the understandings of humans are not covered it this definition of truth. However, we can define ‘universal truth’ as equivalent to all the ‘universal realities’ whether those realities have been understood by the humans or not.

Humans’ understandings may be objective or subjective in nature. Some of both the objective and subjective understandings may be in agreement with the corresponding realities and the other objective as well as subjective understandings may not be in agreement with the corresponding realities. If humans’ understandings are in agreement with the corresponding realities then these understandings can be considered to be true. Since both objective as well as subjective understandings can be in agreement with the reality so the ‘truth’ can be objective as well as subjective in nature. If, on the other hand, humans’ understandings are not in agreement with the corresponding realities, then these understandings are untrue and misleading. Since both objective as well as subjective understandings may be such that are not in agreement with the reality, so both objectivity as well as subjectivity can be untrue and misleading. And all those realities that are outside the scope of humans’ understanding can be objective in nature but cannot, however be subjective. These realities are not known to humanity. These are not known to humans because although they may be supported by any ‘external object’, but the situation is such that ‘external object’ in this case, although have its ‘objective’ existence, but its existence is unknown to humans. Humans do not know these realities also because these are not supported by any ‘internal information’. Since these un-known realities can be supported by (unknown) ‘external object’ so these un-known realities can be considered to be objective in nature and since these un-known realities are not supported by any internal information, so these realities are not subjective in nature. These realities are simply out side the scope of current human knowledge, despite having their ‘objective existence’. Universal truth consists of both un-known as well as known truths.

We can explain the concept of ‘reality’ with the help of previously stated example where the ‘real’ situation was that Mr. Ali was in fact a poor student and actually he did not deserve grade-B. The ‘objective fact’ however was that Mr. Ali had acquired grade-B. In this case the ‘objective fact’ was not in agreement with the ‘reality’, so the ‘objective fact’, in this case, was different from ‘truth’. Also note that in this particular case, the subjective information that ‘Mr. Ali in fact is a poor student and so he did not deserve grade-B’ happened to be such subjective information, which was in agreement with the reality. So this subjective information was ‘true’ in this case.

So we can conclude that ‘truth’ is an entity, which is distinguishable from objectivity. Not all objective knowledge is true and truth may also include a subjective information. In addition, ‘truth’ also includes those entities which are still out side the scope of human knowledge.

Difference between ‘Objectivity’ and ‘Impartiality’:

The concept of ‘objectivity’ already has been described in the above section; here we shall try to explain the concept of ‘impartiality’. To be ‘impartial’ means the formation of a subjective opinion that may be based on combination of subjective and objective input data, such an opinion is just ensured that it is not one sided i.e. all the related subjective and objective aspects have been taken into consideration as well as properly analyzed and evaluated, while forming the impartial opinion. An impartial opinion is therefore such a ’subjective’ opinion, which is not one, sided. This concept needs to be explained with the help of an example. Suppose two persons have opposite subjective opinions on a single issue. One of the persons says that, “Mr. Ali is a good student” and the other person says that, “Mr. Ali is not a good student”. The situation is that only one of the opinions is right and the other is wrong. A third person wants to arrive at the ‘impartial opinion’. What would be the ‘impartial opinion’ in this case? Remember that only one of the opinions is right and the other is wrong. If the third person forms the opinion that Mr. Ali is a good student, then he would be taking ’side’ of the first person’s opinion and this opinion cannot be considered to be ‘impartial’ even if this opinion is right. The same would be the case if the third person elects second person’s opinion as his own. Remember that this third person cannot form any third opinion because the right opinion is only one of the two available opinions. Is the formation of an ‘impartial opinion’ possible under these conditions? Apparently it seems that any opinion, which does not take side of any of the two available opinions, would not be true because the truth is contained in either of the two opposite opinions. Actually the requirements of an impartial opinion are not that any of the given opinion cannot be opted. In fact, we can opt, in this case, any one of the available opinions and still can say that our option is not one sided. For this purpose, we will have to positively consider, analyze and evaluate both the opposite opinions. The one of the two opinions that shall be opted after such positive consideration, analysis and evaluation would be the ‘impartial opinion’ in this case. Now our option cannot be called as ‘one sided’ because we have opted this opinion after positively considering both the available opinions. If we choose one of the opinions without such consideration then our choice cannot be termed as ‘impartial’ even if our choice is the right opinion. If we choose one of the opinions after proper such consideration, then most probably our choice shall be the right one. But unfortunately, if our choice is not the right one, after such consideration, even then our choice is ‘impartial’ in nature irrespective of the fact that it is wrong.

Other Characteristics of Subjective/ Objective Statements:

Previously we have identified that in case a person holds a subjective opinion, then the ‘fact’ that the subjective opinion is held by that person is objective in nature. For example, if Mr. A says that, “Mr. Ali is a good student”. In this case, the statement (or opinion etc.) that ‘Mr. Ali is a good student’ is subjective in nature but the ‘fact’ that ‘Mr. A says this’, is objective because we can ask and verify from Mr. A whether he consider Mr. Ali to be a good student or not. In this case, we can use the subjective statement; ‘Mr. Ali is a good student’ in an objective manner as well as for objective purposes. If we say that ‘Mr. A says that’ Mr. Ali is a good student, here we have used a subjective statement in an objective manner as well as for objective purpose. In this case, the fact that ‘Mr. Ali is a good student, is considered to be true, by Mr. A’ is objective in nature. We, in this case, can manipulate this fact in order to use a subjective statement in an objective manner as well as for objective purpose. For example if we put an argument to Mr. A, that since ‘Mr. Ali is a good student, so he cannot commit such minor mistakes’. In this argument, a subjective statement i.e. ‘Mr. Ali is a good student’ has been used in an objective manner as well as for objective purpose. The statement itself is subjective but the fact that this subjective statement is considered to be true by Mr. A is objective. We actually have manipulated this fact, in our argument. If we put this same ‘argument’ to Mr. B, who does not consider Mr. Ali to be a good student, here we are not using the subjective statement in an objective manner as well as for objective purpose. Our this argument is invalid because here we want to convince Mr. B that Mr. Ali cannot commit minor mistakes, on the basis of such a ‘fact’ which is not considered true by Mr. B. Mr. B will not be convinced by our ‘argument’. He will say that it is not proved in your argument that Mr. Ali cannot do minor mistakes because despite your claim, Mr. Ali in fact is not a good student and so he can do minor mistakes. In this argument, since the subjective statement has not been used in an objective manner as well as for objective purpose so the argument would remain unsuccessful in its purpose. But if we put the same argument to Mr. A, who already considers Mr. Ali as a good student. Here the argument shall be successful in its purpose and Mr. A would be convinced about the fact that Mr. Ali cannot commit such minor mistakes. The statement that ‘Mr. Ali is a good student’ is a subjective statement. But it is not subjective if we use this statement for reference purpose in our argumentation with Mr. A. If we use this statement as a reference in our argumentation with Mr. A, then this statement is objective in nature.

Another thing that needs to be considered here is that up till now we have analyzed only single statements as to the nature of their being subjective or objective. A whole system of statements also can be analyzed in the same manner. Examples of ’system of statements’ may include rules and regulation, code of law, code of religion etc. For example rules and regulations are made up of many statements and all the different statements have their respective role in the over all policy of rules and regulations. So these statements, in this case, as well as in code of law and code of religion etc. can be considered as system of statements. Such type of systems of statements can be considered ‘objective rules’ because, as far as their objectivity is concerned, we shall show that the nature of these systems of statements have to be objective in all the cases and since, as far as their nature as ‘rules’ is concerned, such systems of statements are required to be accepted and followed by a particular class of persons, in as it is form, so these systems of statements can be considered to be sets of rules.

There are two issues involved in the case of ’systems of statements’:

i. Whether a particular statement is a part of the system or not. This issue is objectively verifiable in the manner that the ’system’ is the ‘external object’ that exists in the form of lets say, written code of law. So this ‘external object’ is to be used for the objective verification of the issue. Such an issue can be raised by any person irrespective of the fact that he is required to accept the system in as it is form or not. If such an issue has been raised by a person who is required to accept the system in as it is form, then in this case, he is interested in knowing whether a particular instruction (i.e. particular statement) is a part of the system or not, in order to ensure that his decisions and behavior should be in agreement with the accepted system. If, however, such an issue has been raised by a person who is not required to accept the system in as it is form, then in this case, he may be interested in putting the statement (instruction) in question in his argumentation with the person who is required to accept the instruction in as it is form. These points can be elaborated with the help of examples. Suppose a Hindu who considers Geeta to be true in as it is form. He is however, not confirmed about the existence of a particular instruction of Gita that can affect his decision or behavior in any issue. In this case, Geeta is the ‘external object’ and that Hindu can seek direct confirmation by reading Geeta by himself. In this way he shall finalize the nature of his decision or behavior. Further suppose that a Sikh who just wants to show before a Hindu that a particular instruction, in fact, is a part of Geeta. In this case, Sikh is not required to accept or follow instructions of Geeta in as it is form, he is using instructions of Geeta in his argumentation with a Hindu in order to mould the decision or behavior of the Hindu in a manner in which he himself desires. In this case, actually his own desired state of affairs with Hindu happened to be coinciding with the instructions of Geeta that is why he is using the instructions of Geeta in his argumentation with a Hindu. In this case, the Sikh person is using the instructions of Geeta in an objective manner and for objective purpose.

Whether a person is required to take decisions on the basis of ‘instructions’ that are laid down in the system of instructions (i.e. system of statements) or not. Or that the person shall be ‘convinced’ or not by an argument, containing the reference material from the system of instructions, that is put to him. It will depend on whether that person comes under the jurisdiction of that system or not. If that person comes under the jurisdiction, then he shall be required to take his decisions on the basis of that system and also he should be convinced by such arguments etc. But if this person does not actually take his decisions on the basis of what is instructed by the system or if the person refuses to accept the results of such argumentation etc., in these kinds of situations, that person is guilty of violating the ‘objective rules’. The system of instructions that is binding on a particular class of persons, can be considered to be ‘objective rules’. ‘Objective’ because all the instructions have to be accepted and followed in as it is form and ‘rules’ because instructions are compulsorily to be followed. If instructions are not compulsorily to be followed, then the instructions are neither objective in nature nor can be considered to be rules. In this case, instructions are not ‘objective’ because these are not required to be followed in as it is form and these are not ‘rules’ because these are not compulsorily required to be followed. If on the other hand, the person does not come under the jurisdiction of that system, he shall not be required to take his decisions on the basis of ‘instructions’ that are laid down in the system of instructions. Also that person would not be ‘convinced’ by any such argument that contains the reference material from the system of instructions. Under this situation, what would be the status of that system of instructions as to their nature of being subjective or objective? It is apparent that the status of system of instructions, even in this case is that of ‘objective rules’ because the system of instructions is still binding on a particular class of persons. These are ‘objective rules’ even for that person who is not required to follow these rules. On the basis of these ‘objective rules’ he can require from those people who come under the jurisdiction of these ‘objective rules’ to behave and respond in a particular way i.e. the way which is directed by the instructions and which also has happened to be in agreement with his own desired state of affairs. He can ‘objectively’ refer to those ‘instructions’, so the status of the system of instructions, even in this case, is that of ‘objective rules’.

Objectivity, in the form of Principles:

Objectivity, in the form of Principles:

Up till now we have discussed subjective and objective statements. We also have discussed systems of statements. The conclusion that we have derived about the status of such ’systems of statements’, as code of law, rules and regulations or code of religion etc. is that we should consider these kind of systems of statements as ‘objective rules’ in all the cases. Previously, we have described that other forms of objectivity and subjectivity, which are ‘objective principles’, ‘objective tendencies’ and ’subjective tendencies’ also exist. Now we shall discuss these forms of objectivity and subjectivity.

Universal Principles:

Before having described the concept of ‘objective principles’, it is necessary to define ‘universal principles’ first and then to differentiate between universal principles and cause effect relations. We can define universal principles as: “Various general nature phenomena that exist in the functionality of material and abstract universe as well as in the psychology and behavior of living things.”

By the phrase ‘general nature phenomena’, we mean series of events that always occur in same order and sequence and/ or always give same results under same objective conditions. The concept of ‘universal principles’, in this context, seems to be the same as the ‘event flow type’ cause effect relationships. These two concepts however are different. We have defined ‘event flow type’ cause effect relationships as ‘experience based generalizations of associations of information’ and in some cases as analogical conclusions. The concept of ‘event flow type’ cause effect relationships is similar to the concept of universal principles in that ‘event flow type’ cause effect relationships also mean series of events that occur in same order and sequence. The real difference would become apparent if we say that ‘event flow type’ cause effect principles actually do not mean series of events that always would occur in same order and sequence and always give same results under same objective conditions. These cause effect relationships actually are such (experience based or analogical) ‘understandings’ of humans that make humans ‘think’ that the series of events as experienced (or derived as analogical conclusions) would occur in such order and sequence as is ‘understood’ by them. It is quite apparent that human understandings may or may not be in agreement with reality. While analyzing the nature of these cause effect relationships, we have seen that the cause effect relationships may be invalid also. So we can differentiate the concept of ‘universal principles’ from the concept of ‘event flow type’ cause effect relationships on the basis of following points:

i. ‘Universal principles’ are the real general nature phenomena that exist in the functionality of universe whereas the ‘event flow type’ cause effect relations are the general nature phenomena which are derived/ defined by humans and are ‘understood’ by them as a part of the functionality of universe as well as of their routine life matters.

ii. ‘Universal principles’ are independent of human knowledge and understanding. They would have their objective existence even if there is no human who can try to understand them. Cause effect relationships, on the other hand, are the product of human understanding. Humans can understand universal principles also. In this case human understanding i.e. ’cause effect relationship’ and the universal reality i.e. ‘universal principle’ would be same.

iii. We have used the word ‘principle’ in the case of ‘universal principles’ and ‘relationship’ in the case of ’cause effect relations’ in order to point out and emphasize the difference between these two concepts.

iv. Cause effect relations not only include the understanding of general nature phenomena that are part of the functionality of universe but also include the understandings of general routine life matters. For example, the understanding of a general routine life matter that ‘buildings are constructed by mesons’ is a valid cause effect relation but mere fact that buildings are generally constructed by the mesons cannot become a universal principle. Universal principles do not include these kinds of general human life routines.

v. Cause effect relations may also be invalid due to the inaccuracies in the human understanding. Universal principles, on the other hand cannot be considered to be inaccurate even if there prevail some inaccuracy in the functionality of material universe. It should be noted that if really some inaccuracy in the functionality of the material universe exists, then occurrence of same event may not give the same result over and over again. It seems that the principle should be considered invalid in this case. But actually the universal principle is not invalid even in this case because by definition ‘universal principles’ shall give same results under ’same’ objective conditions. So if due to a change in the objective conditions the new results taken happen to be different from the previous ones, then it cannot be concluded that the universal principle was invalid. In fact the impact on the final results of the change in the objective conditions would be determinable in this case.

vi. Cause effect relations are ‘known’ understandings of humans. Humans cannot have ‘unknown’ understandings. So there can be no such thing as ‘unknown cause effect relationships’. Whereas the universal principles are independent of human understandings so there can be both ‘known’ as well as ‘unknown’ universal principles.

vii. If universal principles are understood by humans then they can be considered to be ‘known universal principles’. In case of ‘known universal principles’, the cause effect relation and the universal principle would be same. In such conditions, it is better to refer to such universal principle (or the cause effect relation) as scientific principle. But since scientific principles can be subject to improvements and expansions as a result of application of any new information relating to the issue, so scientific principles may not always be equivalent to the concerned universal principle. Scientific principles are actually those cause-effect relations that claim to describe (or represent) a universal principle. Humans ‘consider’ scientific principles as representative of the universal principle because they verify the ‘objective truth’ of the scientific principle using the available or known ‘objective verification techniques’. These ‘objective verification techniques’ are known as ‘Scientific Method’. It must be noted that ‘scientific method’ itself can be subject to errors and mistakes or even a correct scientific method can be inaccurately applied in certain cases. In this way, ‘objectively proved’ scientific principles may remain insufficient/ incomplete and/ or erroneous. A scientific principle, which has been successfully proved as an “objective truth”, has the meaning that understanding given by the scientific principle has been proved to be ‘objectively true’ because the ‘truth’ of this ‘understanding’ has been confirmed by the ‘scientific method’. Since ‘scientific method’ employed in that particular case itself can be subject to errors, so an ‘objectively true’ scientific principle may not be in agreement with reality (i.e. reality, in this case is the concerned ‘universal principle’). Therefore, even in case of a ‘scientific principle’, the ‘objective truth’ may be different from the ‘real truth’.

Objective Principles:

Objective principles are those cause-effect relations that claim to represent a universal principle. These are considered ‘objective’ because their ‘truth value’ is ‘objectively verifiable’ using the ‘scientific method’. Those objective principles that proved to be ‘objectively true’, as per the application of scientific method, would become ‘scientific principles’. Those ‘objective principles’ that have been proved as ‘objectively inaccurate’, as per the application of scientific method should be considered to be ‘objectively inaccurate’ objective principles, or can be considered ‘invalid ideas’ also.

Scientific Principles:

Scientific principles are those ‘objective principles’ that have been proved to be ‘true’ as per the results of the ‘objective verification’ using the ‘scientific method’. In case the scientific method employed was absolutely error free, then ‘scientific principle’ and the ‘universal principle’ would be same and there would be no difference between ‘objective truth’ and the ‘real truth’. But if there was some mistake (may be un-known) in the ‘objective verification process’ using the ‘scientific method’; in this case, there shall be difference between ‘scientific principle’ and the ‘universal principle’ and so the ‘objective truth’ and the ‘real truth’ also shall be different in this case.

Newton’s laws of motion can be considered to be among the examples of those scientific principles that exist in the functionality of material world, whereas Pythagoras’ theorem can be considered such a scientific principle that exists in the functionality of abstract universe. Similarly, the principle of ‘classical conditioning’ can be considered such scientific principle that exists in the functionality and behavior of certain living things. These scientific principles, subject to the conformity of their ‘objective truth’ with the ‘real truth’ can be considered as the examples of ‘known universal principles’ also. And obviously we cannot give any example out of ‘unknown’ universal principles simply because they are still unknown to us.

We have seen, in the case of objective statements that the truth-value of the objective statements can be verified by an ‘external object’. In the case of ‘universal principles’, we are not concerned with finding out the truth values of these principles because universal principles them self would be true whether or not the truth-value or even the existence of the principle is known to us. In the case of universal principles, we are actually concerned with finding out the objective-truth of our own understanding of the principle. If we successfully (objectively) verify that our understanding of the principle is true it means that we have arrived at a scientific principle. The issue is how to objectively verify our understanding about a universal principle in order to arrive at a scientific principle? Every objective principle (i.e. our objective-type understanding about a universal principle) in fact, is a claim that the understanding given by it, is in agreement with the universal principle. If we ‘objectively verify’ this claim to be true, then this ‘objective principle’ would become a ‘scientific principle’. The meaning of ‘objective verification’ is that the objective principle has been proved to be ‘objectively true’ as a result of the application of ‘Scientific Method’. We already have seen that there can be difference between ‘objective truth’ and ‘real truth’. If in a particular case, there actually exists a difference between ‘objective truth’ and ‘real truth’, then the ‘objective truth’ in fact is wrong and the ‘scientific theory’ is actually misleading in this case. There can be several reasons for the difference in ‘objective truth’ and the ‘real truth’. For example the scientific method itself can be erroneous. Secondly an accurate scientific method may be inaccurately applied in a particular case. Another reason may be that an accurate scientific method was accurately applied but the results may have been wrongfully concluded. In this way wrong results can be given the status of ‘objective truth’. The only way to minimize the difference between ‘objective truth’ and the ‘real truth’ is to continuously review the previous results of the application of scientific method. Let us emphasize that this activity has been badly overlooked by the scientific community. The fact is that every result of the application of scientific method is currently considered as the final one and so there is no idea that there can be difference between ‘objective truth’ and the ‘real truth’. Scientific principles are considered as equivalent to universal principles whereas actually there is difference between scientific principles and universal principles. If scientific principles are the universal principles, then we should not hope for any kind of improvement in already established scientific theories. But since scientific theories, practically are in a continuous process of improvements, so there is no valid basis for to consider scientific principles and universal principles to be the one single thing.

New Ideas with reference to Subjectivity/ Objectivity:

New Ideas with reference to Subjectivity/ Objectivity:

Idea generation process always gives a subjective result. Every new idea is subjective in nature and character. It however can be converted into an objective fact as a result of successful application of scientific methodology. The function of scientific methodology is the ‘objective verification of subjective data’. If the new idea is objectively verifiable, then we can consider the content information of the idea to be objective (only due to its objective verifiability) in nature but the idea itself is subjective because a new idea is a personal conclusion based on the personal information of the person who has conceived the new idea.

As a result of successful application of the objective verification as per the scientific methodology, the original ’subjective idea’ becomes the ‘objective fact’.

The original subjective idea, however, may not be successfully verified as per the results of the application of scientific methodology. There are two possible situations:

1- The subjective idea is objectively proved to be ‘untrue’ as a result of the application of scientific methodology. An idea, which is objectively proved to be untrue, is un-scientific idea. An un-scientific idea may still be considered to be true by a class of persons. This class of persons may subjectively consider that un-scientific idea to be the objective truth. In this case, such idea may be considered to be a superstitious idea. If we use even this superstitious idea for reference purpose in our argumentation, we are using this idea objectively, in this case. Superstitious ideas are those which cannot give the desired or expected results if they are put to practical application. The desired results cannot be taken but it does not mean that such ideas cannot be put into even un-successful application. That class of people can put this invalid idea into practical application. The desired results, however, shall not be received in this way. But however, even the unsuccessful attempt to practically implement an invalid idea, can affect the material world negatively or positively. For example if a superstitious person wants to get some desired result lets say he wants good crops in his agriculture land. He invalidly thinks that this objective can only be achieved if he kills any un-known person. Now suppose that he actually kills an un-known person but he does not get the desired results. In this way the desired result although has not been taken but the material world however has been affected in a negative way i.e. an innocent person has been unduly killed. Now suppose that after killing that un-known person, the superstitious person also gets the desired results. In this case, in fact the desired result has been obtained not because the un-known person has been killed. The successful desired results in this case are taken due to other objective scientific reasons which may still be un-known to that superstitious person. So he still thinks that the desired results have been taken due to the practical implementation of that idea of killing an un-known person.

2- If a subjective idea is not objectively verifiable using the scientific methodology, then that idea cannot become an objective fact. Such an idea, although cannot become an objective fact but still then such an idea cannot be termed as an un-scientific idea. Here we also can differentiate between real fact (truth) and the objective fact. The objective truth is that real truth which humans can verify as true using the scientific methodology. All the real truths, however, may not be verifiable using the scientific methodology. Objective truths are only those that are objectively known to be true by the humans. Therefore all objective truths are also real truths but all the real truths may not be the objective truths. A real truth that cannot be verified using the scientific methodology may be considered to be true by a class of people whereas another class of people may not consider it true and still another class of people may not finally decide about that truth i.e. is it true or not. Such matters are in fact the matters of faith rather than of any objective evidence etc. In this case only one of the groups is on the right. But this cannot be objectively decided by any of the groups. Such ideas or ideologies that cannot be objectively verifiable are the metaphysical theories. Here let us emphasize that in the metaphysical ideologies all the elements of that ideology must be objectively non-verifiable. If some elements of a metaphysical ideology are objectively reject able, then those particular elements of that ideology are obviously superstitious in nature. If those particular elements of the ideology are the integral part of the whole system of that ‘metaphysical’ ideology, then that is not the metaphysical ideology but in fact, is a superstitious ideology. Other humans, in this case, can consider such an ideology as wrong. But a pure metaphysical ideology, whose all the elements are non-verifiable using the scientific methodology, cannot be considered to be wrong by other humans even in case the ideology is wrong.

The role of scientific methodology is to verify, in objective terms, any subjective idea. To originate the subjective idea is not the task of the scientific methodology.

The task to originate the (new) subjective ideas seems to be assignable to philosophy. The philosophy, whose task is to originate subjective ideas, should not confine itself to originating only the verifiable ideas. To originate verifiable as well as non-verifiable ideas must be the task of that philosophy. It is not the right of the scientific methodology to put objections why philosophy is originating such subjective ideas which are not verifiable.

The real task of the scientific methodology is to identify and segregate the verifiable subjective ideas that have been originated by the philosophy along with other non-verifiable ideas. After having identified the verifiable subjective ideas, the next step is to get these subjective ideas objectively verified.

Difference between Theoretical and Practical Science:

Theoretical science is philosophical in nature. The task of the theoretical science is the logical and imaginative evaluation and analysis of various scientific concepts and to propose new scientific theories.

Practical science: There are two functions of practical science:

i. To ‘practically test’ the ‘validity’ of new scientific theories and;

ii. To ‘practically apply’ the valid scientific theories. This function is the ‘practical application’ of the ‘practical wisdom’.

A theoretical scientist may or may not be a practical scientist also and similarly a practical scientist may or may not be a theoretical scientist also.

Theoretical scientist’s theories cannot become objective truth unless the practical scientist has verified those theories. Those ‘verified’ objective theories are idle (idle but useful for idea generation) unless they are put to practical application by the practical scientists. Theoretical science provides raw materials to the practical science for its operations. The practical application of science by the practical scientist also generates new questions, which are taken up by the theoretical science as its input.

The role of Pragmatism:

Pragmatism seems to be setting such guidelines for the theoretical science that direct the theoretical science to originate only the practically applicable theories. In other words the function of theoretical science, according to Pragmatism is confined to the usage of only the practical wisdom. This is a limited vision of reality because practical wisdom is not the all human knowledge. It is only a part of total knowledge.

Note: Here ‘practical wisdom’ means such human mind’s ability and tendency that organizes information in mind in such a way that this organized information tells what to do (i.e. in order to get practical utility etc.).

Progressive Rational Approach vs. Progressive Empirical Approach:

Rationalism’s progressive information handling approach is different from the Empirical progressive information handling approach.

In the case of Rationalism, new information can only be a conclusion. Rationalism, in fact, is a series of reasoning process. At every stage, a new conclusion is drawn which itself is used for further reasoning. The new conclusion, which is drawn at every stage, in the reasoning process, is the only legitimate new information for a Rationalist. This system is not compatible with human mind’s sequence of thought. Unlike as in ’sequence of thought’, the reasoning of the Rationalism starts from an axiom and then remain confined to whatever is validly deducible out of that axiom.

It seems that if rational reasoning approach becomes compatible with the ’sequence of thought’, then it would become the ‘empirical progressive information handling approach’. Whatever is perceived, depending on the importance as to relationship with outstanding problems and issues, (i.e. here the starting point is any appropriate perception or feeling and not any rigid axiom) can be the starting point of the reasoning process. Every other new and important information from whatever source i.e. including perception as well as conclusions, is incorporated into the reasoning process. Also the similar and associated ideas that may come to the conscious mind, also depending on importance as well as on the validity of similarity or association, are also incorporated in the reasoning process and conclusions are drawn at every appropriate stage.

Now the total knowledge is not confined to whatever is deducible from the axioms. Now the upper limit of knowledge is the total experience of the person and whatever is deducible from that total experience. The total experience of one person also includes experience of other learned humans, which is acquired by that person by reading books etc.

One who only experiences and does not deduce, is empirical static person. The other person who not only experiences but also draws his own conclusions, is the empirical progressive person.

A kind of regressiveness is also possible in this case and it is the tendency to draw such kind of conclusions as are only supportive to the person’s own belief system. So the lack of impartial reasoning approach may be treated as empirical regressiveness.

Appropriateness of the Empirical Progressive Approach:

To generalize every important and appropriate new information or feeling and then drawing conclusions there from is considered as the Empirical progressive approach in this discussion but this is not considered as the right approach according to the scientific methodology. Particularly, this approach is also not the right approach from the point of view of Greek scholars.

Greek scholars’ point of view was that they only made deductions out of so called ‘axioms’. Those axioms were few in number and were considered the ’self evident truths’. Everything validly deduced from the ’self evident truth’ had to be true, according to them. So, actually they did not need any kind of experimental verification etc. because only the validity of the deduction was the sufficient verification about the deduced facts. In fact, anything validly deduced from a given truth has to be true also because a valid deduction is such a reasoning where it is impossible for the given information true and the deduced information false.

So it was the policy matter for those Greek scholars to not to use every feeling and every information as input for their deductions because if every feeling and every new information were to be taken as input even for a valid deduction, they could not guarantee the truth of the deduced information because the truth of every new information or feeling was not confirmed i.e. confirmed truth, for those Greek scholars consisted of only the so called ’self evident axioms’ and the deduced information from those axioms. Axioms were few in number and every new information or feeling could not acquire the status of axiom. Only the true information (i.e. only the axioms and deductions there from - for the Greek scholars), if used as input in a valid deduction, could give the guarantee about the truth of the deduced information. So in this case, the legitimate given information could only be the ’self evident truths’ or anything validly deduced from those ’self evident truths’. Under these conditions, it was in fact, useless to do any kind of experimental verification.

There were three grave mistakes in such an approach:

i. The truth-value of those ’self evident truths’ was mistakenly considered as unquestionable. In fact, those axioms could be false also as later on rightly shown by Galileo and Johanas Kappler etc.

ii. The total knowledge, under these conditions, had to be limited up to the knowledge of those few axioms and whatever maximum that could be validly deduced out of those few axioms. So only the linear expansion in knowledge was possible in such an approach, because analogical inferences were also missing in that approach. Greeks only used deductive logic because only deductive logic gives surety about the truth of conclusion provided the given information is true.

iii. They did not recognize any new information as axiom because, to them, to be considered an axiom, the information must have to be a ’self evident truth’. The ’self evident truth’, itself was a vogue concept. The truth-value of those ’self evident truths’ was considered to be not questionable. But however, some of those axioms, later on, were rightly questioned for their truth-value and so some axioms were proved to be wrong later on. So in fact there was no valid reason for not accepting the newly recognized information also an ‘axiom’ because just like other ‘accepted’ axioms, any new information was also not a ’self evident truth’ in fact. So actually any new information could be given the status of axiom but those ancient Greek scholars did not do this. But here, it is important to note that if every new information was to be considered axiom, then it would be against the policy of those Greeks i.e. of not doing any kind of practical verification because those Greeks were not sure about the truth of any information which was other than their accepted axioms and the deduced information out of those accepted axioms. But mistakenly they were sure about the truth-value of their accepted axioms. Had they not commit this mistake, then they would have accepted any new information as axiom and they would also need practical verification of those new axioms and whatever deductions they might have made.

On this issue, the scientific method insists on very careful selection of information for the purpose of generalization and then making deductions there from. To generalize every appropriate feeling and every important new information and then making deductions there from is considered a ‘careless approach’ by the scientific methodology.

My opinion on this issue:

The function of scientific methodology, in my opinion, is to transform the subjective information into the objective knowledge. To produce, or to create, or to originate the subjective information is not the task of scientific methodology. Scientific methodology is concerned only with the objective verification of the subjective data. The subjective data, here, is not the product of scientific methodology. The subjective data is the product of ‘thinking’ process that may have occurred in the mind of an ordinary person, or in the mind of a philosopher or even in the mind of a scientific methodologist. If the subjective idea has been generated in the mind of a scientific methodologist, even then it cannot be called as the product of scientific methodology. Such a subjective idea, in fact has been generated as a result of a mind process that has occurred in the mind of a scientific methodologist. Here our scientific methodologist, in fact has not performed the role of a scientific methodologist. In this situation, he has acted as a philosopher.

If to originate the subjective data is not the task of scientific methodology then this scientific methodology also should have no right of putting any kind of objection on the nature and kind of subjective data, which is in fact, the product of philosophical thinking.

Also it is not the task of philosophical thinking to produce any kind of objective knowledge. Philosophical thinking only can produce subjective ideas except in the situation where a valid deduction is made out of an objective theory. Only in this case, an objective knowledge can be resulted by the pure philosophical thinking. Generally, we should assert that philosophical thinking only can produce subjective ideas and we should consider that to produce objective knowledge is out side the scope of philosophical thinking.

In my opinion, any kind of restriction as to the origination of only particular kind of subjective ideas cannot validly be imposed on the philosophical thinking. Philosophical thinking must have full liberty as to the origination of any kind and nature of subjective ideas. Philosophical thinking cannot be restricted in such manner as for to originate only the objectively verifiable subjective ideas. The only responsibility of the philosophical thinking, in this regard, in my opinion, is that the philosophical thinking must be ‘impartial’ in its analysis and it must try to be accurate in drawing any kind of conclusions i.e. deductive or analogical etc. Drawing of conclusions, as has been identified in another section consist of two distinct steps i.e. (i) Association of information process and (ii) Combination of information process. The philosophical thinking must try to be accurate in both these processes. This is however, not the responsibility of the philosophical thinking to try to be objective also. Because to be objective or to produce objective knowledge is not the task of philosophical thinking.

The task of philosophical thinking, therefore not only is to generate new subjective ideas, it also has to ensure the subjective accuracy of those newly generated ideas. Philosophical thinking, however, should have no concern with the objective validity of those newly generated subjective ideas.

The input information for the philosophical thinking may be any other subjective idea, or it may be some objective scientific theory or may be both. But the output of philosophical thinking, mostly are the subjective ideas. A valid deduction out of some objective scientific theory may be considered to be objective in nature but to produce only this type of results is not the task of philosophical thinking.

Once the philosophical thinking has originated a set of subjective ideas, now the role of scientific methodology initiates. Following is a brief sketch of the steps to be taken by the scientific methodology:

1. Out of all the available subjective ideas, making selection of those subjective ideas that can be objectively verified. Here techniques of the linguistic analysis also can be applied. In my opinion, Linguistics is not philosophy at all. The role of Linguistics is similar to that of scientific methodology. The intention of the linguistic analysis is not to originate new ideas. The currently accepted role of linguistic analysis is to decide about the meaningfulness and absurdity of the already available ideas/ concepts. Absurd ideas, according to linguistics, are those that cannot be objectively verified. And the meaningful ideas are those, according to linguistics, that can be objectively verified. Linguistic analysis does not actually perform any kind of objective verification. It only decides which idea is objectively verifiable and which is not. Obviously, actually it is not the role of linguistic analysis to decide about the absurdity of any idea or concept. Just because a given idea, if cannot be objectively verified, it cannot necessarily be regarded as absurd. Absurd ideas are actually those ideas that have been proved to be absurd as a result of successful application of objective verification. So in fact, the ideas that have been proved to be absurd were originally objectively verifiable. These ideas have been proved to be incorrect as per the results of objective verification. And to actually perform this objective verification is not the role of linguistic analysis so therefore linguistic analysis cannot decide about the absurdity of any given idea/ concept. Since the task of linguistic analysis is not to originate new ideas so it is not right to consider it a form of philosophy and since the task of linguistic analysis is to decide about the objective verifiability of given subjective ideas so it is better to consider linguistics as the first phase of the scientific methodology.

2. Making refinements in the objectively verifiable ideas. It may include reshaping such ideas in the proper form of hypothesis.

3. To decide about the method of verification i.e. is it going to be some kind of physical (laboratory) experimentation or some other objective verification technique is required for the particular situation. Usually scientific ideas require experimental verification whereas the ideas related to the issues of ’social sciences’ are typically ‘objectively’ verified through the application of statistical techniques. There are certain drawbacks; however that seem to be associated with the application of statistical techniques for the purpose of objective verification of subjective ideas. These drawbacks shall be pointed out and analyzed in some other discussion. After deciding about the appropriate method to be adopted for the objective verification, detailed procedures of the selected method are to be followed. A point, here, is worth mentioning that philosophical thinking may be a non-professional type of activity but scientific methodology requires professional knowledge and skill. Philosophical thinking is not professional in nature because everyone can produce subjective ideas but everyone cannot objectively verify those subjective ideas. Philosophical thinking however requires the ability to think accurately i.e. logically.

So we can conclude that the role of philosophical thinking cannot be restricted to the origination of only the objectively verifiable ideas. Scientific methodology has no right of putting any such objection in this regard. And the Greek scholars were wrong in their approach.

Here we should accept the important aspects of the objective knowledge due to which objective knowledge, for practical reasons, has to be given preference over the non-verifiable subjective information. Objective knowledge, for example an objective scientific theory gives the surety of getting the expected results upon its practical application. Non-verifiable subjective information cannot provide this surety. To be not ’sure’ however does not to be necessarily ‘wrong’. The other benefit of the objective knowledge is that the objectivity can easily ‘convince’ other people about the truth-value of such knowledge. Objective knowledge can ‘conveniently’ be applied for those judgments which are required to be necessarily accepted by a number of different people.

Non-verifiable subjective information/ ideas that are also known as metaphysics cannot be regarded as absurd altogether. Many of such ideas may be true, in fact. The only drawback is that we cannot be confirmed about their truth value. Not only metaphysics but also superstitions can be considered as the intellectual assets of human kind. Any other known form of life does not possess any kind of superstition or metaphysics etc. These are, along with sciences, also the unique feature of human beings.

Analysis of a portion of an Essay by Russell:

Galileo - by Bertrand Russell (English translation from Urdu translation in book “Aap sochtey kiyun Naheen - by Shahazad Ahmed):

‘Scientific Method’, although seems to be much complicated in its developed form, but in fact, it is simple. It depends on such observations of the facts that lead the observer to discover a generalized principle, which is working behind the system under study. There are two steps, first observation is made and then the principle is deduced. Both the steps are compulsorily required and also there is unlimited potential in making improvements in both the steps. But the real fact is that the person who first time told that “fire burns”, he used the scientific method because before having said that he might have really burned in fire and that person must have gone through the said two steps i.e. ‘observation’ and the ‘generalized principle’.

They people certainly did not have the means, which are the requirements of scientific method i.e. first, the very careful selection of the related facts and on the other hand the approach towards the principle from different means but not to try to formulate a principle carelessly. A person who says that “support less objects in the air fall towards ground”. This is just an ‘attempt’ to formulate a principle. Balloons, butterflies and air planes can easily reject this ‘principle’. But a person who understands the underlying principles that work behind the behavior of falling objects knows that there are certain exceptions also that do not fall towards ground.

Scientific method is simple in its essence. Humans have learned it with a great difficulty and its knowledge is still confined to a minority group and this minority group also keep its application restricted to finding answers to those questions only about which they them self have any sort of opinion. If you try to find one such person who habitually takes care about small quantities in his experimentations and then draws conclusions very carefully, then you also can do the experiments along with him and you certainly would learn a lot in this way.

My Analysis of the above extract from the essay:

“Scientific Method, although seems to be much complicated in its developed form, but in fact, it is simple. It depends on such observations of the facts that lead the observer to discover a generalized principle, which is working behind the system under study. There are two steps, first observation is made and then the principle is deduced. Both the steps are compulsorily required and also there is unlimited potential in making improvements in both the steps. But the real fact is that the person who first time told that “fire burns”, he used the scientific method because before having said that he might have really burned in fire and that person must have gone through the said two steps i.e. ‘observation’ and the ‘generalized principle’.”

My Comments:

Here Russell actually is not describing the scientific methodology but is describing ‘philosophical thinking’. Role of the scientific methodology i.e. to get objective verification of the subjective ideas is simply ignored by Russell. And direct observation is not the necessary condition for philosophical thinking. The question of direct observation shall come at the time of the objective verification process of the subjective idea.

“They people certainly did not have the means which are the requirements of scientific method i.e. first the very careful selection of the related facts and on the other hand the approach towards the principle from different means but not to try to formulate a principle carelessly.”

My Comments:

This is not right policy of scientific method. Scientific method is not responsible to discover laws (principles). It is responsible to first of all objectively verify the s