I hope you can access this Tribune article. If not, I apologize. I can never tell.

The author (Rex Huppke) disagrees with the definition of objective. He says that dictionaries say it means, "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions." Yet, he says, isn't it really based on what I believe are the facts as well as my feelings and opinions? I have thought that for a long time, too.

What are your thoughts?

Couldn't read it without paying tribute.

In that case what does he (and you) think "subjective" means?

Couldn't read the article, but I like the subject. I follow educational politics, & find no end of policies purportedly based on objective measurement, 'accountability', et al, whose foundations are firmly ensconced in subjective agendas.

The meaning of the word doesn't change because some people claim to be objective when they aren't. That's like saying "truth" really means "lies" because people always tell the truth only as they see it and they could be wrong.

Bob, according to the dictionary then, "subjective" would mean "based on feelings or opinions." That I could agree with.

I wish I could access the Tribune these days. I imagine there is a way; I just don't know it. Here is the article:


If there's one thing I don't agree with, it's the definition of the word "objective."

The so-called "dictionaries" say it means: Based on facts rather than feelings or opinions. But that just doesn't feel right, in my opinion.

A more accurate definition of objective would be: Based on what I believe are the facts as well as my feelings and opinions. That brings objectivity into the modern era, a time when we trust news only if it lines up with what we believe, and claim anything deviating from those beliefs is unobjective ideological poppycock.

Are you a Fox News viewer? If so, any news emanating from MSNBC is liberal propaganda.

Are you an MSNBC fan? That means every word uttered on Fox News is right-wing nonsense.

It's reasonable to say both networks are unobjective. But if you say that, each side will claim you're making a "false equivalence," criticizing the two networks equally, simply to appear fair.

President Barack Obama brought up the false equivalence concept during a fundraiser last week in Chicago, saying:

"Now, you'll hear if you watch the nightly news or you read the newspapers that, well, there's gridlock, Congress is broken, approval ratings for Congress are terrible. And there's a tendency to say, a plague on both your houses. But the truth of the matter is that the problem in Congress is very specific."

Oooo, this is exciting! I wonder which side he's going to blame?

The president continued: "So when you hear a false equivalence that somehow, well, Congress is just broken, it's not true. What's broken right now is a Republican Party that repeatedly says no to proven, time-tested strategies to grow the economy, create more jobs, ensure fairness, open up opportunity to all people."

I happen to think Obama is correct about the false equivalence. Afraid of being labeled biased, mainstream news outlets often stretch too far to create an aura of balance, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

I also think Obama is predominantly correct that congressional dysfunction is the fault of Republicans.

If you support Obama, you're now saying, "Yay, we love you, Rex!" If you oppose Obama, you're saying, "Rex, you're a leftist puke."

But hold that reaction. Because I also think Obama is glossing over a fair amount of stubbornness and stupidity in his own party, not to mention his own mishandling of many issues. I think Republican obstructionism is to blame in large part for political gridlock, but Democrats are far from innocent.

If you support Obama, you're now saying, "Whoa, whoa, Rex, that's a false equivalence." And if you oppose Obama, you're saying, "Rex, you think a few criticisms of King Obama will create an air of objectivity? You're still a leftist puke."

So it's a lose-lose situation. If I say what I honestly believe — a belief based on facts — and that belief is not 100 percent ideologically pure, I'm either a right-wing apologist or a left-wing hack. If I wrote a column about cute, fluffy kittens, a certain number of dog lovers would step forward and call it a biased affront to adorable puppies everywhere.

That's why objectivity is, if not dead, at least in desperate need of redefining.

So let's all agree with me that an objective thought is one based on what I believe are the facts as well as my feelings and opinions. More simply translated: I'm right and you're wrong.

That's pretty much where we're at already, so it shouldn't be much of a leap.

With our new definition in place, allow me to address a few nettlesome issues so everyone can get on the same page. (That would be my page, not yours, because objectively, I'm right and you're wrong. Remember?)

•Crunchy peanut butter is infinitely superior to creamy peanut butter. Anyone who says otherwise is a communist.

•During Pope Francis' visit to Israel on Monday, he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got into a debate over whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. My gut tells me it was Aramaic, so let's go with that.

•Dogs are better than cats.

I'm sure these objective statements will lead to many angry emails from cat owners, several from creamy peanut butter advocates, a few from biblical scholars, and one or two really frightening ones from cat-owning biblical scholars who love creamy peanut butter.

But all I've done here is laid out what I believe are the facts. Objectively speaking, that's all that seems to matter anymore.

But that's just defining "objective" as meaning "subjective". I stand by what I said, just because people claiming to be objective often aren't that DOESN'T change the meaning of the word. All he's saying is that no one can ever be truly objective. I can agree with that. It's another hack who finds it impossible to separate concepts from the words we use to describe them. So because he sees all the time that people, generally, aren't objective, he's objecting to the whole concept of objectivity and then equating that to the word "objective" so that he can say the word needs redefining.

Well, also, it was a humorous article written by a non-linguist.

On the other hand, I think he makes a good point - in between his silliness. Many people today use the word incorrectly, and I don't think it's because the word has "evolved." I think it's because they just don't get what "objective" means.

And I think it's because people genuinely believe that they are being objective (in its dictionary definition sense) because they don't realise that they aren't. It's not that they don't understand the word, it's that they don't understand themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
...It's another hack who finds it impossible to separate concepts from the words we use to describe them.

How does one do that?

By not claiming things like objectivity is impossible so the word objective* has the wrong meaning or (from another discussion here) that the the concept of privacy has declined in the modern world so the word privacy will disappear from the language.

(Unicorns don't exist... that doesn't mean we should redefine the word "unicorn" to mean "horse". )

quote:

And I think it's because people genuinely believe that they are being objective (in its dictionary definition sense) because they don't realise that they aren't. It's not that they don't understand the word, it's that they don't understand themselves.

I'd agree with that. They don't understand themselves and aren't using the word correctly because of that.

I believe my post about this misled you on the intent of this article. He was merely saying that we use the word wrong because, as you say, we ourselves don't tend to be objective.

I thought it was an interesting perspective, but clearly I presented it wrong.

I read it carefully. He is definitely calling for a redefinition of the word. It doesn't need careful reading though

quote:

f there's one thing I don't agree with, it's the definition of the word "objective."

quote:

The so-called "dictionaries" say it means

quote:

A more accurate definition of objective would be

I agree with the rest, by and large, but this - which I assume is a mere rhetorical flourish - is pure nonsense. Had he presented is article as "people can't be objective" I'd have no issue with it, it's just the "objective is misdefined" part that I have a problem with.

He is a new columnist, and I like his humor.