Poirot
Yes it is rather fascinating, and that’s a good question.

The issue goes to the very heart of logic and the possibility of scientific method.

On the one hand if we say logic and objectivity are possible, we immediately run into the problem that there is no-one to represent that proposition but the human actor saying so, and anyone who agrees, all of which requires individual subjective opinion.

On the other, if we say that objectivity is not possible because it would always require individual interpretation, we are saying that there could be no mathematical proof, no logical proof, and for that matter no possibility of rational human communication.

You might say 2 + 2 apples = 4 apples, but “No” I might say “*I* think it means 2,868 apples”. And we would all have to agree that that is equally valid. But no we wouldn’t either, because there would be no rules of logic to require us to conclude anything. We would be confronted with a senseless jumble.

Similarly, I could reason “Bees make honey. And cows moo. Therefore cows mooing makes sky-scrapers” – a logical non sequitur. And everyone would have to say “Well that’s true for you. And for me. But it might not be for me. Or for you either”.

But we don’t do that. Indeed everyone by participating in discourse, shows that he intrinsically and necessarily accepts certain propositions e.g. that the person spoken to is capable of being persuaded by reason, that is, by a demonstration of objectively necessary relations as to cause and effect.

The solution to the problem must be that, for an individual to assert the possibility of objectivity, *does* entail the presence of individual opinion, but that that, of itself, does not prove that objectivity is impossible. It means that an opinion can be either objectively correct or incorrect at the same time as it is necessarily subjective. Thus the truth of the assertion does not *depend* for it’s truth on the assertor’s individual subjective opinion, but on a reality that is independent of it, thus solving the problem.

This is to do no more than recognise the insight that, after one dies, the world continues spinning on its course. The existence of objective reality does not *depend* on the subjective opinion that remarks it.

So the person denying the possibility of objectivity is in an impossible position, since if true, it precludes his own participation in the discourse; else why does he use reason in at attempt to persuade?

But the person affirming objectivity merely has to affirm that the world has an objective existence independent of the fact that he also happens to live in it; and to note that everyone implicitly affirms the proposition by participating in verbal communication.

However most people denying objectivity don’t deny it for example, in physics for the law of gravitation, nor or in mechanics, for example, when they drive to the shop. They do it, like Squeers, inconsistently, asserting statistics and historical narratives when it suits his purposes, but then when Peter Hume challenges his fallacious claims about capitalism, and offers to disprove them, he flees to a refuge in invincible ignorance, indulging a denial of the very possibility of objective, and therefore of logical proof and disproof.

If objectivity is possible, then not only natural science, but social science must be possible; because reality impose limits on human action that are logically knowable. (This means Squeers neo-Marxist claims are susceptible of objective proof or disproof – all questions of social science do not resolve to mere “ideology”.) The epistemological problem of social science then becomes, what is the correct method for arriving at objective knowledge about data which all derive from subjective human purposes?

Peter Hume
I can’t believe that you want things spelled out.
It’s horses for courses. Obviously in our dealings with the world we have to ignore the inherent aporia that attends our logic. What you are arguing in your post to Poirot can only be ultimately proved in the realist mode, and for the sake of argument and practicality we all agree to suspend disbelief and adhere to our indigenous logic.
If you look at the article to this thread you’ll note that it is not interested in the realist mode—but hang on, well actually it is, it’s trying to belittle people into the realist mode, to pragmatise their beliefs. It’s a load of condescending tosh, actually—it wants to irrationalise belief and plays all the PC games, but comes out on top itself, ie rational. “Religions arise when the teachings of charismatic individuals are later codified by their followers”; isn’t this what’s going on with Dawkins and Hitchens? Does anyone suppose there’s not an ideological agenda being cooked up there, between Ditchkins? They’re lap-dogs to the system, and in the realist mode they’re as hooked on belief as irrational believers!
The author of the article tells us that “William James, the great American philosopher of religion, made a useful distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness.
Let's not harm the healthy minded in our attempt to cure the sick-souled”
I notice there are no quotation marks around this, presumably a paraphrase? Having actually read James’s “Varieties of Religious Experience”, I find it hard to reconcile such a hard-nosed sentiment with James, a noted “anti-foundationalist”—remember that term, Peter?
Anyway, my point is that what I’ve said above about reality, objectivity and belief is outside human logical constructiveness, transcendent, philosophy devoid of practice—sheer indulgence, but (anti)foundational for all that. I’m not defending populist religion of course, which is also part of the realist paradigm, I’m just saying that liberal rationalism is little different; it’s just fashionable.
The modern realist paradigm is based on Cartesian dualism and Humean suspension of disbelief.
They knew how to think in those days!

Reason is a hard taskmaster.
I think that in modern man, ideas of reality are probably far more challenging that, say, for those of a medieval peasant who derived his ideas of reality from his everyday world.
His was a world where everything was seemingly apparent. Although he was probably illiterate, he could listen to sermons and "read" stained-glass windows. His work-a-day world was punctuated by "holy-days" and festivals further immersing him in a religious context - these were in turn tied to seasonal prerogatives...everything seemed to connect.
He wouldn't have considered searching for an objective truth or reality as he assumed he was in possession of it.

Meredith Doig says: "Let's not harm the healthy minded in our attempt to cure the sick souled."

Ivan Illich put it another way, writing on traditional societies:

"Traditional society was more like a set of concentric circles of meaningful structures, while modern man must learn how to find meaning of many structures to which he is only marginally related. In the village, language and architecture and work and religion and family customs were consistent with one another, mutually explanatory and reinforcing. to grow into one implied a growth into others."

Reality is subjective to more than just the human condition - a "healthy mind" is likely to be the outcome of a harmoniously structure life

Squeers
“I can’t believe that you want things spelled out.”

I can’t believe that you think your last post clarified anything.

“They knew how to think in those days!

I’m quite sure Renee Descartes and David Hume didn’t become famous as thinkers by assuming in their premises what they had to prove in their conclusion, which is all you have done – when you weren’t contradicting yourself that is.

All
Squeers is just trying to have a bet each way.

On the one hand he denies that there can be “objectivity per se” but on the other hand he says we can use “indigenous logic”, whatever that means. (As a teenager some Aboriginal acquaintances took me hunting. When they whacked a possum around the head with a club presumably they were using indigenous logic. It’s the kind that really works.)

Squeers blows hot and cold in the same breath. He says that “obviously” to be “practical” we have to “suspend disbelief” and use “realist mode”. So, there is objectivity apparently, or rather, obviously.

But then he says that “liberal rationalism” is little different from “populist religion”. So in other words, there’s only subjective belief again. Squeers can assert the government can make the ocean into lemonade, and this belief cannot be objectively disproved; only a “lap-dog to the system” (capitalist running dog?) could deny it.

According to Squeers' theory, there’s liberal rationalism, and then there’s other kinds of rationalism. The logical structure of the human mind is different for different economic classes or groups or races apparently. But this is just a re-run of the Marxian idea of “ideology”, by which theory does not, and cannot identify objective truth - it is merely a mask for the selfish interests of a particular class. Only the Marxians are capable of objectively understanding that!

But no-one will ever explain in detail what kind of logic is peculiar to each group. Squeers won’t explain when and how a non-liberal who joins the ranks of liberals changes his non-liberal mind into a liberal mind.

But since objectivity is possible otherwise Squeers wouldn’t be trying to use reason to communicate; since socialism has been shown to be impossible in theory, let alone in practice: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1060; since Squeers persists in advocating state economic interventions and condemning the only moral and practical alternative, namely the private ownership of the means of production; and since he cannot rationally establish the case for socialism or refute the case for capitalism, therefore Squeers' intellectual approach is indistinguishable from that of religion – invincible credulity. This is in contradistinction to the *rational* defence of personal and economic liberty – capitalism - that he opposes. Being unable to refute the arguments against him, he resorts to denying the very possibility of reason – reserving only to himself enough supply to keep trotting out his anti-reason and anti-freedom beliefs.