There are two main kinds of objective thinking. The first does not, in theory at least, need a world: the second operates in a world. The first is a priori thinking – it is reasoning from first principles: the second is empirical thinking, involving measuring and testing hypotheses.
Studying Mathematics is a wonderful way to develop a priori thinking. From very simple first principles, such as the concept of number, are built up complicated problems (the concept of number gives rise to the idea of calculation).
A correct solution is true in any time or place, it is demonstrably unaffected by the emotional state or circumstances of the person or machine doing the calculation.
The ‘hard’ sciences are an excellent way to develop empirical thinking. Measurements are made, hypotheses put forward and then tested, with new measurements taken. It is likely that calculations will be made.
Because it is happening in a world the place can affect results (the boiling point of water is affected by altitude and atmospheric pressure) but this is factored in: the individuality of the person or machine doing the measuring and calculating is of no consequence.
Any person who has successfully studied Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Computer coding at an advanced level will have a well developed capacity for objective thinking and understand its importance.
So do the rest of us! Every day we entrust our lives to buildings, cars, trains and planes designed and built by people using well developed objective thinking. If we wanted to know if a bridge was safe or not we would ask an engineer or surveyor, not a poet!
It ought to be the case that any subject studied at secondary or tertiary level will strongly develop objective thinking. A good teacher asks challenging questions, tests the logic of answers and demands evidence.
With the exception of pure Maths and Logic, objective thinking relies on the existence of a world about which there can be a high degree of shared experience. A world in which people act.
Actions are observable and measurable. Our whole justice system is based on this truth. If you get in your car, drive to someone’s house, pull out a gun and shoot someone, these are all potentially observable and measurable actions.
If there are good CCTV images, and many witnesses of good character, location data from your mobile phone, sound records from the victim’s phone, these can all build up a picture ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that you carried out the alleged crime.
There is such a thing as factual accuracy and it matters. A media source that does not care about this becomes as untrustworthy as a corrupt judge. This is something we consider in Chapter 14.
Some subjects will engage our objective and subjective thinking at the same time. History is a good example. The idea of studying History is to understand how life was in the past, and to uncover the key ideas and influences that shaped events. It is inevitable that the historian will uncover some events that they wish had not happened.
It is not possible for a historian to be totally ‘neutral’ about everything. They are emotional beings who think some things are good and others bad. It is inevitable that they will have a personal ‘worldview’ and it is natural that they wish that the evidence they uncover in their research will promote and endorse this worldview. History is very much about power and the abuse of power and this arouses strong feelings.
It is inevitable and legitimate for the historian to have a worldview and want to promote it through the evidence they unearth and the arguments they develop. As a reader I can appreciate and learn from historians with very different worldviews to my own.
But a good historian is committed to objectivity. Someone who deliberately omits, changes or distorts evidence, or cannot develop a logical argument, is a bad historian. They are dealing in propaganda, not History.
Exactly the same is true of journalism. At times a journalist will encounter things which they wish had not happened. They may well worry about the impact of reporting certain pieces of information. The temptation grows to suppress items of news, or distort them.
The more this temptation is given in to, the less trust there is in the person or organisation providing the news. In totalitarian states this level of trust becomes close to zero, and a strong case can be made that it is falling rapidly in many Western democracies.
It is hard to overstate the importance of objective thinking. We need it to understand the past, tell right from wrong, gain a scientific understanding of the world and the ability to use scientific knowledge to engineer solutions to the problems of life.
None of us is thinking objectively the whole time. Our understanding of our lives is coloured by our feelings and subjective experience. To that extent we do ‘socially construct’ our reality. It may be true that reality is ultimately unknowable.
Yet the tool of objective thinking remains vitally important. Like all good tools, we need to understand how and when to use it and carry out the maintenance and checks to ensure it is working as well as possible. It is possible to tell when it is contaminated by subjective thinking. If we ignore that, we get into trouble.