0910G[North America Flying]Issue157 by fake

fake2009UID: 2631119

ISSUE157 - "There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires."

The speaker denies the existence of purely objective observation and asserts all observation is subjective which always guided by the observer's expectations or desires. From philosophical point of view, I totally stand by the arguer that proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are mind-independent. As long as human mind process is undergoing, it captures the basic intuitive ideas manifesting as personal thoughts and feelings which concretely affected by individual experience, anticipation, ideology etc.

The objective fact remains true everywhere. For instance, in mathematics, in base 10, 1 plus 1 equals 2 which is an axiom always and everywhere. Admittedly, when dealing with the pure theoretical issues which contain a constant law to obey, objectivity can exist. However, in the real world, especially touching upon the observation which is processed, summarized, extracted by human, there is no single extremely purely objective one. No matter in which field, art, history, science, when people deal with observations, they unconscientiously mingling with personal experiences and expectations.

Shakespeare once said, "There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes." Accordingly, the author also embraces a favored Hamlet in his mind. When shaping the character in fiction, the artist put his illusions and imaginations aiming to establish a protagonist which might be connected with the artist's distinctive point of view towards life and society, or somewhat correlated with his personal experience, or unique ideology. A distinguished work conducted by Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, is recognized as a veiled autobiography from the view of a little boy, which is based on CD's life, especially the childhood period. The novel aims to uncover the darkness and odiousness of the bourgeois society. This condition is obviously mind-dependent which inevitably involves human attitude and feelings. Thus, it cannot be objective in the field of art.

Some may deny the reliability of the above illustration dealing with art. Admittedly, this example might be somewhat extreme, not general enough. However, if we look through the appearance of these phenomenon, it's easy to find that, similarly, the field of history and science can be seen as the same case. The creator of the art might parallel with the collector and compiler of history, as well as the researcher and lobbyist of a scientific theory.

In the field of science, the reason why there exists subjective observation is that people don't hold the comprehensive and all-round understanding towards certain issues. The process of the development of science is the history of struggle that people are trying very hard to approach objectivity. In my observation, scientists cannot be objective when they propose a hypothesis and then figure out how to let it stand through history. They tend to neglect the negative side of the issue but only eagerly focus on the pursuit of the statistics which can support their hypothesis instead of overthrow the individually cherished hypothesis. It spontaneously touch upon the psychological issue of self-regard which refers to the action of human follows the direction which favors themselves.

Moreover, if it is true that observations are totally objective, it is reasonable to conclude that there is only one correct description of certain issue as the final truth is unique and distinctive. As far as I am concerned, this will cause discords and mess of the world which suppress the creativity and origination that ensure people to think freely. The pleasing fact is that people are moving towards the pure objectivity which pushes the evolution of human civilization. Quite a few issues have open answers and solutions which deserve our attachment and respect.

追忆2009UID: 2629509

1# fake2009
ISSUE157 - "There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires."

The speaker denies the existence of purely objective observation and asserts all observation is subjective which always guided by the observer's expectations or desires. From (the?) philosophical point of view, I totally stand by the arguer that proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are mind-independent. As long as human mind process is undergoing, it captures the basic intuitive ideas manifesting as personal thoughts and feelings which concretely affected by individual experience, anticipation, ideology etc.

The objective fact remains true everywhere. For instance, in mathematics, in base 10, 1 plus 1 equals 2 which is an axiom always and everywhere. Admittedly, when dealing with the pure theoretical issues which contain a constant law to obey, objectivity can exist. However, in the real world, especially touching upon the observation which is processed, summarized, extracted by human, there is no single extremely purely objective one. No matter in which field, art, history, science, when people deal with observations, they unconscientiously mingling with personal experiences and expectations.
Shakespeare once said, "There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes." Accordingly, the author also embraces a favored Hamlet in his mind. When shaping the character in fiction, the artist put his illusions and imaginations aiming to establish a protagonist which might be connected with the artist's distinctive point of view towards life and society, or somewhat correlated with his personal experience, or unique ideology. A distinguished work conducted by Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, is recognized as a veiled autobiography from the view of a little boy, which is based on CD's life, especially the childhood period. The novel aims to uncover the darkness and odiousness of the bourgeois society. This condition is obviously mind-dependent which inevitably involves human attitude and feelings. Thus, it cannot be objective in the field of art.

Some may deny the reliability of the above illustration dealing with art. Admittedly, this example might be somewhat extreme, not general enough. However, if we look through the appearance of these phenomenon, it's easy to find that, similarly, the field of history and science can be seen as the same case. The creator of the art might parallel with the collector and compiler of history, as well as the researcher and lobbyist of a scientific theory.
。

In the field of science, the reason why there exists subjective observation is that people don't hold the comprehensive and all-round understanding towards certain issues. The process of the development of science is the history of struggle that people are trying very hard to approach objectivity. In my observation, scientists cannot be objective when they propose a hypothesis and then figure out how to let it stand through history. They tend to neglect the negative side of the issue but only eagerly focus on the pursuit of the statistics which can support their hypothesis instead of overthrow the individually cherished hypothesis. It spontaneously touch upon the psychological issue of self-regard which refers to the action of human follows the direction which favors themselves.

Moreover, if it is true that observations are totally objective, it is reasonable to conclude that there is only one correct description of certain issue as the final truth is unique and distinctive. As far as I am concerned, this will cause discords and mess of the world which suppress the creativity and origination that ensure people to think freely. The pleasing fact is that people are moving towards the pure objectivity which pushes the evolution of human civilization. Quite a few issues have open answers and solutions which deserve our attachment and respect.

论点：从哲学的角度来讲，完全赞同演讲人的观点。只要是经过人大脑的处理，那么人的想法和认识就会受到个人经历，期待，思想体系的影响。

1.先让步，以基本算术运算为例，承认对于有常理可循的纯理论的问题是可以做到客观。再转折，提出在现实世界里只要是经过人脑处理或思考，observation中便不可避免的参入个人的经验和期待。

2.以Shakespeare，Charles Dickens的作品为例，详细论述了在艺术领域里不存在objective。

3.过渡。进一步将论点从艺术领域扩展到历史和科学上

4.承接上一段，以科学领域的不客观展开论述。不过没提历史领域，我个人感觉这样似乎与前面的过渡段不太协调。或者可以加一句，以科学为例什么的，让人明白为什么过渡到历史领域后就没有在进一步论述。另外，不确定以“科学家故意忽视对自己科学假设不利的内容”作为证明科学不客观的论据是否合适。这似乎并不是公认的科学家的常态，不具有普遍性。比如说，从科学家认识问题不全面，研究中结合了过多的个人假设与猜想，最后导致片面的结果方面来说或许也能说明科学领域的不够客观的问题。

5.最后通过假设observations are totally objective，讨论可能出现的混乱结果,进一步支持了自己的观点。结论

fake2009UID: 2631119

科学的那一段......
The reason why there exists subjective observation is that people don't hold the comprehensive and all-round understanding towards certain issues. Take the science field for example, the process of the development of science is the history of struggle that people are trying very hard to approach objectivity. In my observation, scientists cannot be purely objective when they propose a hypothesis and then figure out how to let it stand through history. Sometimes based on the partial understanding of the issue, scientists tend to make a hypothesis with excessive personal favorable ideas and suspects which leads to subjectivity. This process spontaneously touch upon the psychological issue of self-regard which refers to the action of human follows the direction which favors themselves.