Subjectivity or Objectivity

Oscillating Duality

The oscillating duality refers to the polar contrasts found in THEE hierarchies between odd- and even-numbered levels in regard to a key property.

The Inquiry-PH2 duality appears to be about the locus of control. Inquiry seem to be controlled by oneself in the odd-numbered levels and by social forces in the even-numbered levels: e.g. we freely make our own comparisons-L3 about the taste of fruit, but some institution specifies how its weight is measured-L4 and we conform. As this example shows, personal control is about subjectivity, and the associated fuzziness and uncertainty.

The ability to forcibly reverse the oscillating duality was first noticed in regard to the PH5-Primary Hierarchy of Communication. Subsequent investigation in the Architecture Room suggests that forcible reversal occurs in all Primary Hierarchies.

Inquiry potentially involves use of all 7 levels of inquiry, but the scientific paradigm emphasizes objectivity. So forcible reversal may seem to be required at odd levels while being unnecessary or inappropriate for even levels. See detail and examples in the Architecture Room.

Odd Levels

The odd-numbered Levels are felt to be subjective and under personal control. So the output is potentially unique and presents a potential for idiosyncratic and disputed outcome—even if it may turn out to be correct. To handle such situations within science, the subjectivity is forcibly converted into objectivity, almost as a matter of routine.

L1-Data is the foundation and means for inquiry. Because it is necessarily subjective (despite being presented as objective), others want to check and see for themselves when unexpected or unwelcome data are reported. It is well-recognized that errors can inadvertently creep in and personal biases may intrude.

Handling: If there is an unexpected or surprising data, then studies attempting to replicate (or refute) are the response. This reflects a determination to ensure objectivity and impose explicit social control. That is why scientists seek to identity all reasonable objections and deliberately handle them so far as is possible e.g. pre-checking equipment, using multiple observers, inserting blanks &c.

Formulae: Collecting data (PH2-L1) becomes objective by deploying a repertoire-of-responses-L4, and this lies within Action-PH1.

L3-Comparisons are carried out subjectively and so are under personal control. It is often regarded as helpful to have numerous individuals comparing, but this still results in multiple subjective comparisons.

Handling: In a scientific study, social control becomes paramount, and the inherent subjectivity requires control. This may involve training raters in a pre-specified and socially validated system, using several judges and checking for inter-rater reliability, and asking a rater to make the same comparison at different times and checking for intra-rater reliability. Reliability is commonly taken to mean validity.

Formulae: Arranging comparisons (PH2-L3) to be objective is its own specific and defined activity i.e. a principal object-L4, and lies within Purpose-PH6.

L5-Relations are subjective because a particular person may view any two phenomena of their own choosing as connected.

Handling: For a relation to be viewed as objective and valid, social control must be provided. Measurements made under different conditions and in various ways can demonstrate that the perceived relation is not a chance connection or idiosyncratic subjective claim.

Formulae: Constructing a relation (PH2-L5) to hold up objectively leads to measurement-L4, which is in the realm of Inquiry-PH2.

L7-Wonder is naturally subjective andpersonal because channeling wonder is a private matter and a state that we each allow ourselves to enter and enjoy.

Handling: Scientists naturally desire to get control of wonder, or at least direct it to serve impersonal purposes. With this objective orientation, when ideas, words or images (seemingly utterly disconnected from the object of study) float into awareness, they are not discarded. Instead, they are treated as symbols with relevance to the selected focus of inquiry.

Formulae: Wonder (PH2-L7) that is objectively guided leads to symbols-L4 in the realm of Communication-PH5.

Even Levels

The even-numbered Levels are taken to be objective and under social control. This is felt to be scientifically desirable and any loss of objectivity is viewed as a serious failing.

L2-Concepts, being tools of a scientific community are intrinsically social. Needing to be used by all, they have an objective existence.

Failing: A concept becomes subjective if a person allows their own ideas to enter into the definition, and is unconcerned about whether others understand or are likely to agree.

Formulae: The subjectively defined concept (PH2-L2) is a created idea-L4 within the realm of Experience-PH4.

L4-Measurement is under social control because it depends on an objective unit to which all must conform.

Failing:  Measurements come under personal control if those making and using them are willing to compromise on rigor or perhaps on social acceptance.

Formulae: Agreeing measurement (PH2-L4) that is subjective involves a compromise-L4, and that is a matter of Willingness-PH7.

L6-Judgement in inquiry must be justified, which implies meeting social acceptability and assumes a concern to ensure objectivity.

Failing: Scientists commonly let personal bias enter into judgements to preserve their values and existing positions on issues. Judgements that are made subjectively typically support and stabilize current theories and paradigms.

Formulae: Subjective elements in judgement (PH2-L6) are about stabilization-L4 of a position, theory, paradigm or reputation; and this is an element of Change-PH3.

Subjectively-driven judgements lacking justification occur all the time—but these typically lie outside the inquiry domain-PH2 and are either felt ideas (PH4-L4), or desired meanings (PH5-L5).

---

• Back to Review of the elements (PH1).
• Continue to research methods(PH'2).
• Continue to dynamics of a rigorous analysis (PH2K).

Originally posted: 23-Aug-2015.