| Unless you can demonstrate some bias in my assertions, and as long as they are reasonable, I think that they must be accepted as objective. The fact that they could be biased is not, in itself, enough to call them subjective, as I understand the common meaning of the term. Now, something which is objective can nevertheless turn out to be mistaken, for example, a test that is not, in itself biased, can turn out to be an inadequate measure of someone's abilities if there are transient factors affecting performance. Saying that something "could be subjective" or biased, is only one possible objection to its reliability. The big question is "when should an assertion be dismissed as merely an opinion"? It only makes sense to me to dismiss something as merely an opinion if there is a high degree of doubtfulness, evidenced by the ability to argue strongly the defects of the assertion, or alternate hypotheses. To me, saying that something is not scientifically verified is insufficient grounds to dismiss it as merely an opinion, and does not come near proving that it is subjective, or biased. |
