Are you objective?

One key to objectivity is a reliance on evidence. Evidence of actual cause and effect relationships. One indicator of lacking objectivity is a reliance on the citing of things people believe. E.g. Lots of people believe in gods so the existence of gods is evidenced. Or people believe themselves to be safer when they own a gun so guns make people safer. Or the relentless citation of what people believe about migration rather than the facts of the subject.... Etc.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It was one example pertaining to the wider topic of objectivity. You seem to have some sort of agenda going on in your responses that has caused you to seize on something that you think allows you to bring your particular bugbear to the fore.Do you actually have anything to say on the subject of objectivity? Or not?

So objectivity and how one might seek to achieve it? Anything? Anything at all?

Evaluating evidence is part of taking an objective approach.The tobacco industry and evidence on health effects is an example of where things can go wrong if people have an agenda, but ultimately facts are facts and there comes a point where the true picture becomes inarguable.I would put forward climate change and gun advocacy as examples of those in denial about facts in much the same way that the tobacco industry was previously. All the same signs are there.

Well of course.But the point of published scientific papers is that the methods used, sample sizes, statistical analysis applied etc. should be made clear and thus able to be assessed.Where those sorts of things aren't present, or are inadequate, alarm bells regarding objectivity should be raised. Where you effectively have a lobby group paying for "research" these things are especially important. But, as was the case with tobacco, genuine results can only be suppressed for so long in the face of mounting evidence.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

With it's reliance on inductive and abductive reasoning science itself is arguably logically fallacious to some extent. Science doesn't provide logical proofs in the way that mathematics does, for example.The problem with deductive logic is that you can only derive that which is already present in ones premise(s). To draw conclusions from necessarily incomplete evidence requires something more. Which is why scientific conclusions are tentative conclusions rather than logical proofs.Logic is a useful tool but objective conclusions about the real world cannot be derived from logic alone.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Science is the best method of deriving objective conclusions we have yet discovered.Science, strictly speaking, relies on the logical fallacy of saying 'if some then all' to derive general laws and theories. The theory of evolution states that ALL lifeforms on Earth derive from a common ancestor. That conclusion wasn't derived from examining every single life form ever to have existed on Earth. Just some of them. Newton's universal law of gravitation similarly wasn't derived by studying every piece of matter in the universe. Just some of them.Scientific conclusions are generalisations which are derived by extrapolating every observed instance. That is why they are tentative and that is why falsifiability is so important. They are very much NOT logical proofs.In terms of deductive logic the conclusion that ALL life on Earth is related, or any other similarly generalised scientific law or theory, is an example of 'if some then all'. Which in strict pure logic terms would be a fallacious conclusion to make.But having said all that I will agree that poor logic in an argument can certainly be indicative of an un-objective stance. I just don't think a relentless focus on logical fallacies is the be all and end all given that evidence based reasoning is itself not entirely without it's purely logical problems.

I am as prone to personal bias as anyone else.But in terms of slowly mounting evidence and the sort of resistance that evidence is met with there are stark similarities between the tobacco health issue, climate change and the gun issue.If the statistics and evidence suggested (for example) that nations awash with guns were less violent, safer and relatively free from crime then ultimately I would have to accept that evidence whatever I may want to believe.Ultimately time will tell. But on these issues I am pretty confident that my position is not just a result of personal bias but is actually evidentially sound. But 'the truth can always be questioned' and, like the tobacco issue, the facts will eventually become increasingly obvious to all. Whichever 'side' they support.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think your comment raises an important point about objectivity and impartiality. Does the fact I obviously hold a position on the subjects in question mean that I fail the objectivity test? Maybe. But I would argue that impartiality and objectivity are different.The BBC by law has to be politically impartial. It sometimes goes to ridiculous lengths and contortions to be seen to be politically neutral. One aspect of this is that things like climate change when discussed in news programs gets a talking head representing both sides of the argument regardless of the fact that one side is considerably more evidenced than the other.If evidence is key to objectivity then this sort of neutral position may be impartial without being sufficiently objective. If that makes any sense......

I realise that.But I do think it raises an interesting point regarding the difference between impartiality and objectivity.Having a firm but evidence based position may well be objective without being neutral.
But one should obviously be 'impartial' to the extent of being open to new evidence in order to achieve objectivity.Or something like that.

Given the topic of group affiliation we should probably consider what groups we might be affiliated to. I'm white, male, European, British, city dwelling, 40 odd years old etc. These cultural factors are going to influence my opinions to a considerable degree and it's probably silly to deny that. In terms of EvC posters - We seem to be predominantly male and mainly from either the US or UK with the odd notable exception. There seems to be a wide age range here and a reasonable mix of educational backgrounds, veering towards a scientific bent as one might expect given the forum's primary theme.In global terms us EvCers are quite a homogenous group. The most obvious splits are along lines of religiosity where the UKers and Europeans seem to be notably more atheistic in general and the most religious members tend to be American. The the other notable split is (in the widest sense) political. Economically and politically I would suggest the Europeans are fairly consistently more left wing with the US members tending to be more right wing but with more individual variation and sme 'passionate' views on individual topics such as those mentioned in the OP (guns, climate etc.)If we largely fall into line with the cultural norms around us how objective can we really claim to be?