I can’t argue with much of what you write, and don’t want to.

“Of course, if you don’t think objectivity is possible, then you think that the claim of objectivity is actually hiding the biases that inevitably are there.”

This is a good point. Still, I think there is some use for the term “objectivity”. It is a goal for which we should all strive, i.e., being willing to put our biases, assumptions, and even our well-thought out presuppositions (that persons are conscious of to varying degrees). We should, *objectively speaking*, be willing to give other views their day in court. This is the *right* thing to do. Now, one may say, “we should not even give the dignity of a response to holocaust deniers”, for example, but this presumes that all people stuck in this lie can not be persuaded by real evidence on the ground… that their overriding biases can not be overcome thought speaking the truth in love… I think it is a mistake. Further, if you really do care about someone, when they are stuck in a kind of thinking that is doing them (or someone they love harm), we really do want to help that person overcome their errors. So here, that holocaust-denier who is a family member that I care about becomes particularly important.

“….In fact, transparency subsumes objectivity. Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that assertion up by letting us look at sources, disagreements, and the personal assumptions and values supposedly bracketed out of the report.”

Amen! “Anyone who claims objectivity” – by saying this, and by going on to illustrate the kinds of “right things” that this person can do in order to back up their assertion, you are actually agreeing with me, right: i.e., you are saying that we can, and really should seek objectivity in our lives. So we really are not disagreeing.

“Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?”

David, I fully agree with the first two sentences (although I think it may result in some persons being more unwilling to listen to others from the get go, that is, if the idea that there is no hope for any “common ground” takes hold in the minds of men). But the last one is tricky, and I think may be where we diverge… I think that it is tricky to balance trust in persons and our own critical thinking that produces our own tapestries composed of evidence, ideas, and arguments… This issue of when we trust persons, and for what needs more teasing out… I agree that a person better have good evidence, ideas and argument before they are trusted, but in the words of the Bible: one man presents his case and it sounds good, until another speaks…

In my mind, what is important is the real-life evidence – as the persons on the ground that are able and willing help make the facts they discover meaningful to us (here, don’t think along the lines of “Meaning of life”, or “coherent worldviews”, or even “meaningful in a scientific sense”, but rather think first of all of the court of law, where in the course of testimony and cross-examination all the pieces often come together, helping people to arrive at conclusions, causing us to speak of things like “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt… even if we may want to avoid [and sometimes juries do this!] the conclusions) – they help things “make sense” to us. I think that ultimately, when the chips are down, it is only in this way – by constantly looking at evidence and wrestling with it – that there should be justification / warrant – and hence real power to adjust beliefs / ideologies / narratives (our sense of Meaning).

But alas – the history of the world would suggest that very few thinkers thoughtout the age have thought in this way… The Age of the Enlightenment is something of an aberration, I think.

-Nathan