Thanks, this was an interesting write-up. I have one, well, let’s call it a concern or maybe caveat. You write:
Objectivity as it is understood here is a continuum between being more or less objective. Objectivity increases with the diversity of perspectives, as more perspectives in a given discussion lead to more assumptions being challenged and, thus, to an answer that is more likely to be true.
I think this relies on all perspective-havers having some shared norms that enable them to find truth collectively. Philosophy, for example, which while not a science benefits enormously from diverse viewpoints, has norms of logic, reasoning & charity that are essential to finding truth. More generally, my impression is that groups & teams function better when they have some shared values, goals & norms. So that’s the caveat that I would add – that there still need to be shared norms, at least truth-seeking norms.
This stood out to me, too. The situation that came to my mind was an extreme one, but maybe it illustrates the importance of having some basic shared beliefs about how to seek truth:
I used to live upstairs from a neighbor who was from a culture that considered witchcraft a real and serious problem. When she heard noises that she considered strange, she came to my door and told me to stop practicing witchcraft against her. She was not interested in hearing my objections that I was not practicing witchcraft, because she was very sure that I was a witch. I was very sure that I was not (but of course that’s what a witch would say!)
Let’s just say the sharing of our different perspectives did not lead to any epistemic breakthroughs.
That is true. To participate in any discussion you must know something about the topic at hand. Still, I don’t think this is at odds with my post. To stay with your example in philosophy, my post does not intend to argue that basically everyone in the world should partake in philosophy discussions, but merely that the philosophy community should make sure that important perspectives are not overlooked, by a diverse set of people. Your idea of having to have a claim of expertise to meaningfully contribute to a discussion is also highlighted in “Why trust Science?” and I probably should have it highlighted more in my post.
We should acknowledge that knowledge about a topic can also stem from lived experience. In addition, even if I have little knowledge about a topic I might be able to challenge an assumption that was overlooked by a homogenous group.
Thanks, this was an interesting write-up. I have one, well, let’s call it a concern or maybe caveat. You write:
I think this relies on all perspective-havers having some shared norms that enable them to find truth collectively. Philosophy, for example, which while not a science benefits enormously from diverse viewpoints, has norms of logic, reasoning & charity that are essential to finding truth. More generally, my impression is that groups & teams function better when they have some shared values, goals & norms. So that’s the caveat that I would add – that there still need to be shared norms, at least truth-seeking norms.
This stood out to me, too. The situation that came to my mind was an extreme one, but maybe it illustrates the importance of having some basic shared beliefs about how to seek truth:
I used to live upstairs from a neighbor who was from a culture that considered witchcraft a real and serious problem. When she heard noises that she considered strange, she came to my door and told me to stop practicing witchcraft against her. She was not interested in hearing my objections that I was not practicing witchcraft, because she was very sure that I was a witch. I was very sure that I was not (but of course that’s what a witch would say!)
Let’s just say the sharing of our different perspectives did not lead to any epistemic breakthroughs.
That is true. To participate in any discussion you must know something about the topic at hand. Still, I don’t think this is at odds with my post. To stay with your example in philosophy, my post does not intend to argue that basically everyone in the world should partake in philosophy discussions, but merely that the philosophy community should make sure that important perspectives are not overlooked, by a diverse set of people. Your idea of having to have a claim of expertise to meaningfully contribute to a discussion is also highlighted in “Why trust Science?” and I probably should have it highlighted more in my post. We should acknowledge that knowledge about a topic can also stem from lived experience. In addition, even if I have little knowledge about a topic I might be able to challenge an assumption that was overlooked by a homogenous group.