So I don't think Steve means that people can't be objective to some degree, just that our biases tend to make it hard to do that.
If that's what he meant, he should have used some words along those lines.
His claim, in his own words, was unqualified.
If your remark is biased--if it is objectively true that it is not objective--then it is not a biased remark.
I think you've got a non-sequitur here, no? Seems you're saying if your remark is biased then it is not a biased remark. Maybe I'm missing something?
If the person is, in fact, biased, and if, in fact, the remark they make that "all remarks are biased" is objectively true, then their action of making an objective statement of truth demonstrates that being biased does not stand in the way of finding objective truth.
This is a variation of
"The Liar's Paradox," of course. And that, in turn, is a sample of the kind of self-referential statement that Gödel used to prove his
Incompleteness Theorem.If it is true that biased people can be objective, that means that peer review is not required to achieve objectivity.
Well, technically your conclusion follows from the proposition in that peer review may not be required to achieve objectivity, at least to the extent humanly possible, but again, you're ignoring matters of degree.
So did the original poster. He spoke in absolutes. I responded to him in absolutes.
I think the point that Steve makes is that it may be easier or more likely to achieve a greater degree of objectivity if one has his or her work reviewed by other people with different points of view, not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve a good degree of objectivity without that review.
If achieving objectivity requires review absolutely, then the reviewers would require reviewers, who would require reviewers, who would require reviewers ... If the reviewers need not be reviewed, one wonders how it is that they, though biased (the original poster's absolute hypothesis) achieve objectivity and bestow objectivity on the work of others. What is it about naming them "reviewers" that bestows this super-power on them?
. Therefore, there is no need for peer review.
Again, maybe technically true that there is no absolute need to use peer review to achieve objectivity (or at least as close as humanly possible to achieve), but having input from a variety of viewpoints usually helps.
I am offering a different viewpoint from the original poster here. I'm surprised that you haven't thanked me for reviewing his work and pointing out flaws in his thinking. If he had said something as gentle and well-qualified as what you have just said, I wouldn't have given it a second thought.
The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
Says who?
That's the spirit!
In short, I don’t quite see what your point is or how it relates to Steve’s post. Steve made a sincere suggestion to have someone who has no dog in the fight look at the report before publishing it.
The reason he gave for making the recommendation differs in words and in meaning from your words and meaning.
My point is that although it may be philosophically impossible for any human to achieve absolute cosmic objectivity, not so better writing. That can frequently be achieved by a fresh set of eyes, just as Steve suggested.
I'm delighted that you've noticed this is a philosophical argument. The statement that "all humans are biased" is not self-evident, it is not a finding of logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology. It is a generalization based on the supposition that the speaker
knows human nature. It applies to all human beings, past, present, and to come. I don't mind philosophers making and defending generalizations about human nature. This particular generalization--as stated in the absolute language of the original poster, not as qualified by you in your post--seems to me to be self-referentially inconsistent, which, as I understand it, is a sign of an untenable position in philosophy.