I only apologize a little bit for using this ambiguous title. I think there are indeed (at least) two different interpretations that both seem valid, but oddly both interpretations also seem relevant. One interpretation is that there is a point where objectivity will stop — and that is the interpretation that actually motivated me to use this title. But after I had chosen the title, it occurred to me that another interpretation which refers to the goal of objectivity (i.e., the “end” for which the “means” of utilizing objectivity) is also possible. I didn’t actually intend this meaning, but perhaps this is also worth investigating at some point … (but not today).
Today, I will try to make a case that something I discovered just recently (and wrote about yesterday) makes me believe that objectivity may indeed stop (and might even stop soon). Let me cut to the chase here.
Yesterday, I wrote “Irrational Media Promotion Makes “Dr. Noc” Newsworthy“, in which I give a brief overview of something Morgan McSweeney said on Alan Alda’s “Clear + Vivid” podcast recently. Now let me reiterate the gist in my own words here. Basically, he said that what his audience considers to be compelling information is information which is contextualized according to their point of view — essentially, by describing how he himself is a normal person (just like the members of his audience) and that is why the shared information is relevant and valid for them, too (I guess if he were very different — e.g. if he spoke a different language than they do — they might not even pay attention to him). He also mentioned that using a “just the facts” approach of simply present raw, dry data was simply not as compelling (and therefore relatively ineffective).
Here I also want to go deeper on a tangent Alan Alda uses in each episode when interviewing his guests. He uses “seven quick questions”, one of which is “How do you tell someone they have their facts wrong?” I think my own answer to this question would be “In order to answer that question, I would need you to explain to me what you mean by ‘facts'”. I have noticed over the years many of his guests find this aspect of the question difficult to manage, and I sense an increasing amount of pushback, and some have indeed even stated that the word ‘facts’ is problematical.
I could probably write an entire book about this one issue alone. But my point is not a matter of philosophical attitude. Instead, I am actually simply observing “just the facts” of what Morgan McSweeney and also other guests of Alan Alda are saying increasingly. I believe this increasing objection to the notion of ‘facts’ tells us something about human cognition. It tells us that we are skeptical of the “just the facts” philosophy. We doubt that humans are unbiased (indeed, maybe we might even say that anything capable of cognition is biased in some way). Maybe we might ultimately be led to the conclusion that the notion of “objectivity” is a hoax.
I have a very strong hunch that such disillusionment might be a very good thing.
Socio Business blog 