Yasmeen asked:

Objectivity in human sciences.

I'm a bit confused about the term objectivity, I've come across a lot of definitions for it, but what is
objectivity in relation to human sciences?

============

What is an object? It is something given, an item among the furniture of the world which is not a part
of any of us, i.e. of 'subjects'. Accordingly, when we are dealing with them by way of research, and we
wish to study them as they arerather than as they appear to us or how they influence us, then we
study them by way of exclusion of the human agent.We leave our emotions, attachments,
interpretations, apprehensions and our motivations in regard to these objects at home and look at
them (or at least attempt to) in the same way as another object might see them. By extension, then,
any endeavour in which we might be engaged, and whereby we attempt to match this unattached and
cold-hearted assessment, can be eligible for consideration as an 'objective' assessment.

In some instances, the use of this term is incorrect, because people have a habit of confusing the
opinions of experts with objectivity, as if experts could not have an emotional affiliation to their
pronouncements or research findings but this is just something to watch. The descriptive definition I
gave is unaffected by misuse. An excellent example is the supposed objectivity of certain trends in
literary criticism. Now you should have no problem from what I said above to realise that a work of
literature is not an object and therefore cannot be assessed objectively. The only 'objective' features
in (say) a poem are the number of words and stanzas, the sequence of rhythms and rhymes, the
language used and so on. But the moment you begin reading you are involved and objectivity comes
to an end.

One further comment. Why is objectivity so highly prized? Mainly because it permits us, to the degree
possible to humans, to acquire knowledge unfiltered by opinion. A classic instance of the conflict
between subjective and objective knowledge was Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C (ascorbic
acid) as a panaceum for most organic ailments, and especially the common cold. Pauling was a great
scientist and an impeccable researcher, but his fetish about Vitamin C clouded his mind on one very
crucial issue. For while all his objective arguments might be accepted as coming from the horses'
mouth, yet the fact is that many human are allergic against acids and therefore ascorbic acid cannot
'objectively' put forward as a blanket recommendation for cure and control. His long struggle with the
American health authorities did not, therefore, ever come to the conclusion he demanded. He left
himself vulnerable on the score that (a) yes, most western diets are deficient in ascorbic acid, which
is one of the principal chemical substances required by the body to combat illness, but (b) his
recommendations were subjective in the sense that they lacked the rigorous objectivity we demand of
a scientist in that they failed adequately to account for the rather numerous exceptions.

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney