Limitations of Human Mind and so-called “Objectivity”

This is originally posted on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 at 12:33

There is no complete knowledge in this world - every spectre we pursue merely leads closer to the truth. Why do I propose that? The microscope falls on how “knowledge” is generated in our human world. In all sciences - natural or social, we interpret our observations which are filtered via our own paradigm. This is the subjectivity of human observation.

And subjectivity of the human experience involves the bounded rationality of humanity. We can be rational - but only to a certain extent. No one is fully divorced from their own subjectivity when performing a research or pursuing seemingly “rational” endeavours. The lifestyles, emotions, theories, political convictions, philosophy, culture, prejudice and other “a priori” matters - those in the subjective realm of heart, mind and spirit, all come into play.

To claim objectivity, scientists set several criterias - essentially all of them serve to find a consensus and confirm each of our own subjective experiences. The rationale goes like this: If Mary confirms this phenomeneon via her own subjective observation and several others - Tom, Dick and Harry do likewise, their collective of their subjective experiences translates into objectivity - ie. science that is rational and ‘correct’.

But what if in this world, everyone (or the majority) investigating a subject is veiled from the truth? In that case, the “objectivity” gained from confirming the collective of our subjective experiences is no longer valid. Is “objectivity” then, leading us closer to the truth, or is placing too much confidence in “objectivity” an impediment?

Of course in the shoes of those who consider their experiences as “objective”, it is hard to get them to acknowledge the possibility of a veil, for the basis of rationality is grounded conviction and confidence in the notion of objectivity itself.

There is no complete knowledge in this world - every spectre we pursue merely leads closer to the truth. Hence no human should ever consider that they have “made it” in knowing any subject of interest, for the truth can never be fully uncovered by our limited human faculty. By writing this short essay, I am making my subjective experience known to all. My point is not to arrive at an “objective conclusion”, but to engage you in a mental experiment - and signal to you that indeed our human mind is limited.

This is not to dishearten us, but merely a stern reminder that indeed as mortals there are limitations to our human rationale, and every knowledge we deem “objective” is subject to changes. The encouragement is that through acknowledging the limitations of our human mind, we are edging closer to the truth.

Note: This is not an attack on positivism. It is a direct attack on the notion that objectivity is infaillible - the myth that human rationale can actually succeed in discovering the ultimate truth, given our limited mind.