Luc Turpin

Yep!

I admit that this is a very good case for perfect objectivity. Nonetheless, objectivity is still reliant upon subject perception to make the determination that it is objective, which is the main point of the definition. You need a subject to perceive the scratch on the quartz and subject perception is not 100% infallible, although very-very unlikely in your example. How can you lack precision and still be objective? I am not quite sure I understand how this could come about. The mohs scale has quantative values and agree that my example does not make it subjective 1- I am just trying to discuss here, not pass for a genius, which I am not. I have shown that I am not on numerous occasions in my posts. 2- Just saying that imperfections abound also in the minerals stated in the mohs scale 3- I am so smart that I don't even understand your point of continuous rather than not in the mohs scale. 4- Read my Swansont reply above; if you can seperate the object from the subject, then you can claim absolute objectivity. But, the example given by Swansont, which is very-very close to absolute objectivity, does not remove the object from the subject. "Someone" has to make the determination about the "something", and this "someone" is not 100% infallible. 5- Quite frankly, no, but does that make a difference. 6- Here to learn!

Who made the determination that it was slightly harder and using what instrument or test or method? Why are there other tests (Rockwell, Brinel, Vickers) if Mohs has achieved perfect objectivity? "The problem is that the Mohs hardness scale is purely comparative and not objectively set out. Steel pins also don’t take into account the huge variations in steel due to the grade and chemical composition, meaning that it’s of no use for objectively quantifying how hard any one particular steel is." https://www.westyorkssteel.com/blog/testing-steel-how-hard-can-it-be/ The variability of hardness discussed in this quote on steel also applies to all of the minerals used in the Mohs scale Maybe objectivity in scale, but subjectivity in application of scale to realities of the world.

1- That the physical is measured indirectly by its properties and that the result of this measurement is considered objective. 2- the point that I was trying to make is what's stopping science from exploring the physical and non-physical world if indirect measurement can be used in both circumstances. Granted the former would lead to more objectivity while the latter to more subjectivity, I suspect, but the "process" of using measurment as a way of proding reality for answers would be the same. 3- I did ask to "Please expand on "other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable'. Very objective indeed! However, do diamonds differ in hardness? Yes! So, who determined the upper and lower limits of their hardness? When does a diamond stop being a diamond due to impurity? Who chose the common object examples? Could something else have been chosen?

1- Agree 2- According to the definition of objectivity that I have given and support, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, in science and even in the "objectively quantified"; there is always a sliver left of subject perception. 3- Agree that one area with less objectivity does not invalidate areas where there is much more, but again no area of science is impervious to at least a minimum of subject perception. 4- Got that; Still figuring out how to proceed. Interesting link. Went through it quickly, but promised myself that I will read it more attentively a second time. One sentence caught my attention thought "Currently a number of theoretical prediction have been experimentally confirmed, even so they are unexpected and go against accepted views". Ran out of time for today; will post a response tomorrow morning.

Not wanting to equate mind to the physical, but using indirect evidence and measurement as a way of exploring and discovering the true nature of mind. Again, off topic. If indirect measurement is used to uncover the physical and we know that the subjective (e.g qualia, etc.) is amenable to measurement, then what is stopping us from pursuing this line of investigation? We seem to have some sort of agreement that pure objectivity appears to not exist, so pure science then might not exist as well. So, on what grounds do we negate the role of science in pearing into the subjective unknown? Certainly not measurement if we can use indirect measurement. And certainly not because of the subjective nature of "something" as most if not all elements of reality might be composed of varying degrees of both objectivity and subjectivity or even as indicated, sometimes that the classification objective / subjective is not even relevant to certain situations. It was a genuine question. See just above for why I asked the question. Please expand on "other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable'. "Relative" objectivity as in relative to the degree of subject perception e.g.there is less subject perception in taking a measurement then observing the behavior of cephalopods, even if we find ways of categorizing or quantifying behavior. Not moving the goal post, but refining my frame of thought. A matter of degree, not difference in capability.

I will find another venue and identify those findings that I am talking about Very interesting as my contention is that we currently have indirect evidence of mind being all over nature and not necessarily working the way that we thought it would; but, veering off topic again.

And I believe in a messy world; so much so that "truths" may be lying in full view without us even noticing them. Following a well worn path is not conducive to finding unexpected things. 1- Yes, numerous scientific findings that I have posted in other forum threads. 2- A physicalist interpretation is adequate, but insufficient in explaining all of nature. Mind from brain or mind through brain? And is mind all over nature? That is all that I will add here as we are off topic. 1- Agree; off course, but I was challenged to provide evidence which I believe I did! 2- Qualia is individual, subjective and can be indirectly measured - yes. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of nature for which science has no answer and must explore? 3- "Stimulation of the senses by phenomena" can be measured by science. 1- The point that I was trying to make is that ownership is not mine, but fully endorse the definition's interpretation of objectivity. 2- Definition - Objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. There is no perfect objectivity as nothing is totally independent of subject perception. But, relative objectivity (less to more) does exist. Therefore, your thoughts are dependent of you to a high degree as you cannot separate them from subject (you) perception. 3- No contradiction; see 2- 4- According to the definition given, Mohs scales benefit from a high degree of objectivity, but not perfect objectivity as some form of subject perception is required to make the determination of scale. 5- Not anymore! 6- My interpretation is that in a less objective situation, there is more subjectivity and in a more objective situation, there is less subjectivity. 7- True, I am on the defensive as a result of the reception that I have had with past posts of mine. Does something that can only be indirectly measured count as being physical?

The physical property of color is meaurable through wavelenghts, but the qualia of color cannot be measured. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of color?

Many such studies as the one indicated below A sign of possible plant intelligence could be that plants can communicate Plants appear to communicate with microbiota in soil https://phys.org/news/2024-07-hidden-allies-root-microbiota-leaf.html Measurable possible evidence of this The relationship between the plant and microbiota is autonomic or symbiotic? A very small, tentative and possible step towards establishing plant communication. Observational evidence abounds that plant may be capable of communicating. More empirical evidence to come when science starts taking the subject matter more seriously. Respectfully, this is above my level of comprehension. Disagree; thoughts modifying brain structure.

Thank you for being patient with me! 1-I disagree that something beyond physicalism is beyond science. Any lack of objectivity is not a "flaw", but a "factor" to contend with in science. Science is doing a good job at alleviating this "flaw". I am not dismissing science on the grounds that it cannot attain perfect objectivity. 2- Yes, I understand what constitutes scientific evidence and my "opinions" as you call them are what I consider interpretation of evidence. 3- Not several people, but several scientists looking at the same data as myself and seeing something else going on. And I reiterate a minority view, but nonetheless a view. 4- Agree 5- Evidence: information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis. Like this one which appears to show that goldenrod plants demonstrate a form of intelligence by adapting their responses to herbivors based on the presence of neighboring plants and environmental cues, challenging traditional definitions of intelligence. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2024.2345985 There are many such studies that appear to "challenge" our current understanding of nature. 1- The definition is not mine, but one often provided by those in the business of defining the term. 2- A lot of ourthoughts, specially those based on evidence, are very-very objective though; they are just not perfectly objective 3- In what sense am-I contradicting myself? 4- Out of all of the scientific philosophers that I consulted, none claimed that perfect objectivity existed. However, some scientists do believe in perfect objectivity. 5- I agree that there is possibly some kind of a scale of objectivity; and for scientists, mostly dependent upon evidence. 6- And I agree that it is not as simple as that; but perfect objectivity is challenged by philosophers, apparently objects cannot be detached from subjects, and as you state, subjective and objective experiences cannot be unentangled from one another.

1- My point is "what if" nature has more than space, time, energy and matter to offer? Do we not investigate it, because it is beyond "set" parameters? And I raise the "what if" not just to do so, but because of recent findings that, I contend, do not square well with a physicalist interpretation of the world. I know too little of the mathematical model of nature to determine whether or not it is amendable to more than properties of matter and radiation and functions of space and time. 2- With some of the more recent research findings, I respectfully beg to differ on your views about mind. 1- I disagree with your statement 2- Have you ever heard that science is based on objectivity?.....that the pure sciences are "objective" while applied ones, much less "objective"?. 3- Precision - "If the world was a purely objective object, then there would be nothing else left to explore beyond the objective realm. So, cro-magnon person would not have understood quantum mechanics and would have to find that out. 4- As stated in a previous post on this thread - "To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it." 5- I present evidence and you say it is not! 6- My vague dissatisfaction is based on evidence and my dissatisfaction is shared by many that I have referenced, have looked at the same evidence and concluded as I did, that maybe something unconventionnal is going on. 7- What is your definition of evidence and what disqualifies my "evidence" as not being evidence? Got it all this time.

While applying the principle of methodological naturalism and without supernatural intervention, "what if" science brings us beyond space, time, energy and matter? And what is that "what if" if there is a "what if" can be dealt separately in another venue than science. I am being very careful here, because I am supposed to bring this up only in the Speculation section of the forum, but this is my contention with mind. That there is something more than a piece of brain involved in the mental transaction. Or the thing with individual ants having a mind of their own. Or plants having it too. I will go no further, because of what I just stated. I will only add that physicalism is maybe what is holding back some from contemplating other avenues for mind, ants and plants.

1- I do not request nor require "complete objectivity nor "demand an ideal system". It is what it is, but science seems at times to give the impression that perfect objectivity is attainable and that science is the one and only "ideal" system at contemplating reality, 2- If the world was a purely objective object, then there would be nothing else left to explore.

Good question; need to think about that one.

Not only does perfect objectivity not exist, but that "some situations are not amenable to the objective/subjective classification". The boiling point example makes this very clear and your definition is in line with this. As for my own definition, I believe that it goes in the same direction as it stipulates that there is no independence between object and subject. Am-I correct in my statement that this makes our world less predicable, thereby less "clockwork-mechanical"? I disagreed that "I" was demanding an ideal system. "I" am not demanding an ideal system as there is no such thing as an ideal system in the real world. We "agree that perfect objectivity in science is not possible in practice." We agree that, "imperfect though objectivity in science may well be, it has worked fairly well up to now" Agree "that there is bad science out there." And very happy to hear you say that science can be done without the claim that "we live in a materialist-mechanistic world" I have been arguing this from the very beginning. "Some (many)" take what they conceive as science's apparent objective and overall perfectibility as a sign that we live in such a world. I am not even denying that space, time, energy and matter exist, which would be foolish onto itself, but that there may be more to the story than that; and that limiting our scope of the world to a contextual materialist-mechanical worldview is unnecessary and even harmful in keeping an open mind about things. As for methodological naturalism, I agree that religious commitments have no relevance within science, but religion has had an impact, both positively and negatively, in the world, and this cannot be denied. As for physicalism, I should have used it instead of materialism. So you are equating precision to objectivity and stating that some sense of objectivity "can be achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation"? My neophyte-generalist nature of mine would also would push things further and state that science is indeed not as an exact science as some might make it to be. And that this has implications on the nature of science as a whole and/or the nature of the world as a whole. 1. The "2+2=4" comment came from another thread before my statement. 2. In this context then I agree that "there's no conflict between these positions". The most important point that I am getting here is the fact that multiple competing theories are used to study the reality of this world. I was not aware of that. 1- How is my statement a religious and spiritual one? the rest I agree. 2- I do not know if I have a bibble, but my quest is trying to answer if there is more to this world than what science tells us. 3- Indeed, there is no such thing as a stand alone star; I gave it as an example of something that is getting close to being stand alone 4- A bigger segement of it "PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that head which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again, for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness."

I am not good at riddles, so I will keep it simple in the hope that I do not look too foolish in my answer: 15 high Street provides some objective information while Anytown provides less. Science wants to transform Anytowns into 15 High Streets. To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. A stand alone star is an objective entity until someone starts measuring it and determining what the measurement results mean. Object dependence of subject opens the door to bias and the main bias for me is the interpretation of science that the world is a meterialistic one; that I guess is where I lose everyone except me. Thanks for the +1, but I am not doing very well in conveying my frame of thought. Perfect objectivity is an ideal system, but both perfect objectivity and ideal systems are unattainable in this world. You are transforming Anytows into 15 high Streets (see above) and checking for high precision through observation. Then, what is the perceived meaning of all of this? When you go down this path, you create a dependent link between object and observer. Note: I may very be well out to lunch with what I am saying, but I can assure you that all of this thinking is giving me a big headache.

In our own universe. It's all of the subjecitive going on about in this world that science can not adequatly explore because of the tools that it uses.

I agree that uncertainty is inherent and not evidence that objectivity is lacking; that noise exists; that the uncertainty principle exists. I am not in agreement though that I am demanding an ideal system. To the contrary, I believe this to not be possible. I believe that with non-existent "true" objectivity, we are still doing a great job in science. What I am questionning though is that with objective limitations, with even the checks and balances in science, with human bias given as a given and with the fact that reality also includes a subjective nature for which science cannot deal with, are we not premature in stating that fundamentally the world is materialistic and machanistic? Again the picture given by science of reality is good, but maybe incomplete and limited. I wish that someday, folks at this forum stop saying that I am against science; I am not! Just want to point out that there may be fault in saying based solely on science that the material world is all that we get. The material world exists, but something more may be lurking behind the curtain unattainable by science.

I responded that i agreed with the statement, but should have added except for the last sentence.

I realized after the fact that this could be misconstrued as opening a closed thread, so I will leave it at that. I do not believe it does so as it did not touch upon the main theme of the closed thread (just borrowed an element) nor did it relate to the reason for closing the thread. And I could have misinterpreted iNow's thought process. Please substantiate; the only thing coming to mind is that you may be aluding to the fact that no one is saying that true objectivity exists and the "mootness" of the topic. But, I had to start somewhere and chose the beginning. The only "evidence" that I can bring to the table is that some, not many, share my assertion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/why-materialism-is-false-and-why-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-mind/5DC675B901E2F68E82643B88EE468EAE And I want to be cautious here, because I am reitroducing the topic of mind; so I will not go beyond this. Yes, to the question "Does true objectivity exist in science?" I might be mistaken, but the kind of "hard" evidence that you are requesting is, well, hard to find for a debate about a broad theme such as objectivity in science. Again, the only thing that I can bring to the table are some that share my same concern. And does it not make a difference that I am in philosophy rather than a pure science thread? You seem to be asking that I deal with this contention of mine as if it were planets revolving around stars, which it is not. I can only bring what others think about the subject matter. If this is insufficient than I shall cease and desist. I am all fine with what you are saying. In fact, you know more than me in this area. But, I am still itching to ask you this: did the worlview come first then science built around a worlview or was it science through all of the experimentation done that brought about the conclusion that the world was materialist and mechanistic? Notwitstanding what is being said above in your post, is it still possible that a particular worldview is tainting the process? I am entirely in agreement with your statement. No I cannot, because other worlviews than a materialst one are rarely being considered in science. I am only stating that "true" objectivity does not exist. I am not saying that scientific realism is wrong. In fact I agree with it. Again, what science has uncovered about reality is the best that we have so far. Beyond objectivity, my contention, and it is only a contention that I cannot prove is that the camel might have been brought to the materialist water hole rather than the camel finding it himself. I cannot prove my contention, but can we really prove the opposite? That it found water by itself? I agree that this might be very naive of me askiing, but I guess sometimes stupid questions are revealing about the nature of science. Then sorry, I misunderstood. Entirely agree with your statement and with @CharonY on this matter. This section of your quote forced me to think hard as you were showing a possible contradiction of mine in asserting that science is good, but objectivity might not be under control. I will respond by saying that Individually, each science experiment is sound. It is when all of those are put together to claim that we live a materialist-mechanistic world that objectivity might be missing. Appologies to you studiot for I am trying to discuss as best as I can, and maybe I am not up to the task. I am not the type to pontificate. I am trying my best with the time available to me and the number of responses that I am getting. I get lazy sometimes. I went back to your original post and my response and thought that I at least responded to your main points. Please show me where I missed something? Science gives a good picture of reality, but a limited one!

True objectivity does not exist according to all of the authors that I have consulted. None said that it existed. I have tried very hard to find a single article that posits for true objectivity, but have found none. Most articles that I posted present opposite views on certain positions, but the conclusion or conscensus is always the same, it does not exist. On measurement "We therefore need to ask whether the results of scientific measurements and experiments can be aperspectival. In an important debate in the 1980s and 1990s some commentators answered that question with a resounding “no”, which was then rebutted by others. The debate concerns the so-called “experimenter’s regress” (Collins 1985). Collins, a prominent sociologist of science, claims that in order to know whether an experimental result is correct, one first needs to know whether the apparatus producing the result is reliable. But one doesn’t know whether the apparatus is reliable unless one knows that it produces correct results in the first place and so on and so on ad infinitum." "Collins argues that the circle is eventually broken not by the “facts” themselves but rather by factors having to do with the scientist’s career, the social and cognitive interests of his community, and the expected fruitfulness for future work. It is important to note that in Collins’s view these factors do not necessarily make scientific results arbitrary. But what he does argue is that the experimental results do not represent the world according to the absolute conception. Rather, they are produced jointly by the world, scientific apparatuses, and the psychological and sociological factors mentioned above. The facts and phenomena of science are therefore necessarily perspectival." From here and I can dig for more on this matter I am not couching my position in terms of "true" vs "false", but that "true" and "false" are false. Its in the shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life. Where we differ is that you state that it is under control and I say that I am not so sure about that. Just saying at this point in time that "true" objectivity and no objectivity do not exist, but that inded there are many shades of grey. If statistical allowance is required to compensate for the fact that no two experiments are ever exaclty the same speaks to my point that even measurement is not 'true" objectivity. 1- Tried very hard, but did not find any one stipulating that "true" objectivity exists. If anyone finds any, please bring them to the discussion. 2- Yes, the question of if there is "true" objectivity is moot, but by how much science is in-objective is not. My contention is that the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity 3- iNow 4- I will consider it This process takes care of biases between models, but what about those having divergent worldviews?

Science and Objectivity Note: I have consulted forum guidelines and believe the following to be compliant! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Does true objectivity exist in science? Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe. I have tried to be as objective as possible on this topic by consulting many references on the matter. To my surprise, none seem to claim that “view from nowhere” objectivity truly exists. Even in physics, it is not pure. But, is objectivity sufficiently objective to give us a general appreciation of reality, most authors that I have consulted think so, while I and a minority of others remain doubtful. Reading all of the references would make for a better discussion, but here are a few highlights. The first one is a very good summary of the whole debate. “If what is so great about science is its objectivity, then objectivity should be worth defending. The close examinations of scientific practice that philosophers of science have undertaken in the past fifty years have shown, however, that several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ “Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn's analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined.[5] When observational data arises which appears to contradict or falsify a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm historically have not immediately rejected it, as Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do. Instead they have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm. Through ad hoc variations to the theory and sympathetic interpretation of the data, supporting scientists will resolve the apparent conundrum. In extreme cases, they may ignore the data altogether. Thus, the failure of a scientific paradigm will go into crisis when a significant portion of scientists working in the field lose confidence in it. The corollary of this observation is that a paradigm is contingent on the social order amongst scientists at the time it gains ascendancy.[5] Kuhn's theory has been criticised by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Alan Sokal as presenting a relativist view of scientific progress.[6][7]” “In Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective (1988), Donna Haraway argues that objectivity in science and philosophy is traditionally understood as a kind of disembodied and transcendent "conquering gaze from nowhere."[8]: 581  She argues that this kind of objectivity, in which the subject is split apart and distanced from the object, is an impossible "illusion, a god trick."[8]: 583–587  She demands a re-thinking of objectivity in such a way that, while still striving for "faithful accounts of the real world,"[8]: 579  we must also acknowledge our perspective within the world. She calls this new kind of knowledge-making "situated knowledges." Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see."[8]: 581–583  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807 “The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.” – The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Scientific Objectivity” “There is no such thing as objectivity. We are all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them.” ― Bones, “The Doctor in the Photo” “All the evidence points in the opposite direction: every true description is essentially contextual.” https://philarchive.org/archive/HALODI-2 “But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.” https://theconversation.com/quantum-physics-our-study-suggests-objective-reality-doesnt-exist-126805 Many people praise physics for being an “objective” science. In “inferior” sciences like sociology, there is seldom any overall consensus on theories, and things are more open to subjective interpretation. But physics on the other hand is the mature man of the sciences, as it is immune to human biases. After all, it relies on cold hard facts — but how true is that? We often think of physics as a veracious equation handed to us from the sky, but how objective is physics, really? In today’s article, we’ll talk about how the history of physics is riddled with many biases and fallacies that still exist to this day. https://medium.com/@thisscience1/how-objective-is-physics-4072ae22d207 “Summary: Physics, by which I mean models of how reality works at the most fundamental level, is a subjective endeavor. Physics seems to be objective, but that's because there's high intersubjective consensus about which models best explain and predict reality. Rounding this off to objective causes confusion, and the point generalizes for all seemingly objective things.” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CEXxRcCcWmuEikgvg/physics-is-ultimately-subjective I cast a shadow on objectivity, on reality garnered from this objectivity, on science and its presumed immunity to subjectivity and the reception of ideas brought about by myself to this forum.

For plants, but applicable to ants as well. "Evidence suggests that plants can behave intelligently by exhibiting the ability to learn, make associations between environmental cues, engage in complex decisions about resource acquisition, memorize, and adapt in flexible ways. However, plant intelligence is a disputed concept in the scientific community. Reasons for lack of consensus can be traced back to the history of Western philosophy, interpretation of terminology, and due to plants lacking neurons and a central nervous system. Plant intelligence thus constitutes a novel paradigm in the plant sciences. Therefore, the perspectives of scientists in plant-related disciplines need to be investigated in order to gain insight into the current state and future development of this concept." "Our findings show that respondents’ personal belief systems (emphasis mine) and the frequency of taking into account other types of knowledge, such as traditional knowledge, in their own field(s) of study, were associated with their opinions of plant intelligence. Meanwhile, respondents’ professional expertise, background (discipline), or familiarity with evidence provided on plant intelligence did not affect their opinions." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9153103/ Did Nigel tell you that? I am serious though! If observation leads us to that then, so be it. It is not my intention though and we are far-far away from demonstrating that there's a magic spark of intelligence. How about intelligence possibly being part of the universe as is matter? Blending it into the fabric of the universe could be helpful in some other areas of scientific investigations. I admit that it is pure speculation on my part and that the idea has issues of it own to contend with. Just giving it up as an example. My readings seem to suggest that ant intelligence is far more complex than current AI and not functionning on the same operating system.

Notwithstanding my gregarious way of framing things, why is observation on ant intelligence not treated in the same way nor receiving the same level of objectivity as in say this?