Friday, 5 September 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
Extract: Objective analysis
“The testing procedure that attempts to eliminate emotion and feeling, and analyze facts and quantitative comparisons among subjects.”
Extract: Subjective analysis
“Testing that attempts to measure the otherwise unquantifiable. These tests would analyze likes, dislikes, and otherwise subjective intangibles.”
Can religious/spiritual people, who are anti-science and fixated to their principles, question and/or judge science principles unbiasedly and objectively? I would think the answer would be no.
Can anyone in the science community, who are anti-religion/spirituality and fixated to their principles, question and/or judge science principles unbiasedly and objectively? Again the answer would be no.
The reason for this is anyone who is anti-anything they are analysing, will only analyse through subjective reasoning, not objective reasoning, which of course will only give us a bias/subjective evaluation not a true evaluation. A religious/spiritual person who is anti-science will evaluate science and the science community using subjective analysis giving us a bias evolution not a true evolution. This is of course the same with science minded people who are anti-religion/spirituality; their analysis is governed by subjective analysis which is more emotional than objective analysis. As soon as you bring emotions into the equation, any final evaluation is likely to be flawed even though we have supported our claims with evidence. This is due to being subjective instead of objective within our analysis of anything we are anti to, due to our emotions.
If we subjectively analyse anything we are anti to, we will only find evidence to support our emotions, we will not look for any evidence to support anything we are anti to, but if we do, we will discard or ignore such evidence due to our emotions. As soon as a person who is of an ideological principle we are anti to points out evidence to support their claims, we will ignore or discard any such evidence of being of evidence, this is again due to the way we subjectively analyse.
What this is saying is try to be more of an objective analyser than a subjective analyser unless we don’t want a correct evolution of course, but a bias evolution that supports our dislikes. A correct evaluation can only be sought through objective non-emotional analysis, once we bring in such emotions; our final analysis is liable to be incorrect and bias.
The strange thing is the bellow article, on subjective and objective analysis in psychiatry, tells us that psychologists needs to bring this divide between subjective and objective analysis together to give us a truer evaluation which I totally concur with. So should we be using both subjective and objective analysis together as equal partners to give us a more precise evaluation? I would agree with this however if whatever we are evaluating we are anti to, any kind of subjective analysis isn’t going to give us a true evaluation, this is due to our subjective emotions. If we are evaluating anything we are anti to, we must be totally objective within our evaluations otherwise we won’t get a true precise evolution, it will be bias and untrue.
“In the mental state examination, a standard method of describing the clinical encounter is to contrast the patient's supposedly ‘subjective’ account with the doctor's ‘objective’ description. In this model, the doctor is granted a privileged position: the clinician's perspective is taken to be superior to that of the patient. The doctor's objective approach is considered neutral, scientific and representing the truth of the matter. In contrast, the patient's subjective report is regarded as unreliable, distorted and potentially false. The lowly status of the subjective perspective is further emphasised by the frequent use of the accompanying prefix, merely.”
So in all the use of subjective and objective analysis’s at the same time gives us a more balanced view however, we must at times realise the ideological principles we are anti to, we are likely to be subjective within our analysis, therefore there is a need to be more objective within our analysis in these cases rather than just being subjective. It all comes down to being more aware when we evaluate everything within our environment.