Exercising a method is unrelated to what you then do with its results. So it doesn’t seem central to characterize a method (whether to ordain it “objective”) based on what you do with it, rather than based on what it itself is.
Exactly. It’s like saying that if someone occasionally lies, then any claim they make is false. “You don’t get to choose when to be truthful.”
It seems to me the most one can say is that our confidence that someone is being objective at any given time will decrease when we discover inconsistencies? But even this seems too strong. I don’t doubt someone’s statistical analyses because they blindly believe their spouse is the best partner to ever walk the earth. I just figure they have a blind spot, as do we all.
Exercising a method is unrelated to what you then do with its results. So it doesn’t seem central to characterize a method (whether to ordain it “objective”) based on what you do with it, rather than based on what it itself is.
Exactly. It’s like saying that if someone occasionally lies, then any claim they make is false. “You don’t get to choose when to be truthful.”
It seems to me the most one can say is that our confidence that someone is being objective at any given time will decrease when we discover inconsistencies? But even this seems too strong. I don’t doubt someone’s statistical analyses because they blindly believe their spouse is the best partner to ever walk the earth. I just figure they have a blind spot, as do we all.