Talk:objectivity

RFV discussion: April–May 2020
"That which one understands, often, as intellectually, of all and everything, of what is sensed as felt, thereof." WTF does that mean? Equinox ◑ 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And how is one to verify it if we don't even understand it. Perhaps request for cleanup would have been more appropriate. Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you guys have no understanding, as intellectually, of the sense thereof? My Decryptologon Model CIX says, “one‘s intellectual (rational) understanding of that which one senses (feels, observes)”. (This can probably be improved, but I kind of sense what it means.) Now we need some Kiwimagic to see if this is objectively verifiable. Cleanup of the whole thing may be the more attractive option, though. It is not clear who or what is supposed to be in this “state of being objective” in sense 1. Is it facts? Then the definition is a bit strange – unless you are Rupert Sheldrake or Kellyanne Conway, you wouldn’t think it possible they are influenced by one’s emotions. Also, if it is facts, doesn't sense 2 cover this? Or is it an observer’s assessment? Then this coincides with my old and trusted Decryptologon’s decipherment of sense 3. I must say that senses 4 and 5 are also problematically unclear IMO. --Lambiam 17:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * #4 is awful: "That which is perceived to be true to understanding." If it's being perceived then it's no longer objective, surely... Equinox ◑ 17:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we need five senses thereof, even as intellectually. I always thought that this word had one meaning: our sense #1. OK, a couple of other dictionaries do additionally give something equating to our sense #2, "reality", but as for the rest of it ... I have no idea. Mihia (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The other three senses were added by an anon in January 2007. They don't make much sense to me. I wouldn't even know how to begin to clean them up. I'd be inclined to RfV all three of them in case someone has some idea how to verify them, but I wouldn't want anyone to waste time on them without having some idea of what they might be trying to get at. DCDuring (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is a chance that the anon thought there should be a definition at objectivity for every relevant sense of objective, but that doesn't help me imagine how to do a cleanup. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Aha, one person suddenly adding three senses is not a good sign. Tempting to delete, yes. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can’t we replace the whole rigmarole by a single sense, “The property of being objective” accompanied by a few illustrative usexes, and concentrate our lexicographic acumen on the much more common adjective ? --Lambiam 11:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I wonder whether by doing so we may lose the clarity that "objectivity" most often refers to a person's lack of personal bias. Mihia (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps an "especially" subdefinition would address this adequately. DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * See also, below. Mihia (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2020
Senses 4 and 5:


 * 4. That which is perceived to be true to understanding.
 * 5. The object of understanding.

Per RFV of sense 3, above, it is unclear whether these senses exist or even really what they are supposed to mean. Mihia (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that these senses seem to have been an anonymous "drive-by" edit that dumped a lot of senses out of nowhere in one go. I wouldn't spend too much time trying to explain them. Equinox ◑ 19:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If we don’t have a grasp of what the object of understanding is, how can we verify any putative uses? User X may perceive some citation they dig up to be true to understanding, but what about the rest of us? Will we be able to grok it?  --Lambiam 21:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One can take an expansive view of the RfV process. First, AGF for the person adding the challenged definitions: that person thought there was something missing. Next, assume lack of skill in writing a definition and either look at other "unabridged" dictionaries, including older ones, for definitions we lack or try to imagine what might have been meant. Then, hunt for citations that don't fit the current definitions well. Sometimes this works. DCDuring (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)