Understanding Truth and Objectivity in Data
When we talk about data, it's essential to understand that the concept of "truth" can be quite elusive. Unlike in everyday conversations where we might think of truth as something absolute and independent, in the realm of data, truth is a bit more complex.
Let's start with the idea of facts. Facts are pieces of information that are considered to be true within a specific context or framework. For example, the temperature outside right now is a fact. However, even this seemingly straightforward fact can vary depending on where you are and when you check the temperature. This contextual nature of facts immediately introduces a level of subjectivity.
Now, let's delve into the concept of objective data. Objective data is often seen as data that exists independently of individual perspectives or biases. However, in reality, truly objective data is hard to come by. Even seemingly objective data points, such as measurements or statistics, are often influenced by the context in which they are collected, the instruments used, and the assumptions made during the data collection process.
This brings us to the notion of intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity refers to the idea that knowledge and understanding are constructed through shared agreements and interpretations among individuals or within a community. In the world of data, much of what we consider to be objective is actually intersubjective.
Recommended by LinkedIn
For instance, when a group of scientists agrees on a standard method for measuring temperature, they are essentially engaging in an intersubjective process. The data they collect using this method is considered objective within the scientific community because of the shared agreement on how it is collected and interpreted.
It's important for novices in the realm of data to recognize that while objective data may seem like a concrete reality, it is often shaped by human agreements, contexts, and interpretations. This doesn't diminish the value of data; rather, it highlights the importance of understanding the context and assumptions behind the data we work with.
In summary, in data, there is no absolute truth. Instead, we deal with facts that are agreed upon within specific contexts, and what we often perceive as objective data is actually a product of intersubjective agreements and interpretations. This understanding is crucial for anyone working with data to make informed decisions and interpretations.
Long time data person | Exercising my imagination | Sharing insights
7moActually the first time I’ve come across the word “intersubjective” and I will use it from now on.
Founder/CEO of the Open Data Model
8moVery good article Marco. I have a number of posts in which I argue similarly, perhaps even more strongly, that there is no such thing as "objective truth" only shared understandings. This is a picture of my Dog.
Problem Solver of last Resort ; Data Management
8mo"we deal with facts that are agreed upon within specific contexts" The specifics of any such "context" *can* be explicitized in the doco accompanying the encoded form of the facts (the data), simply because the agreements have been made upfront. Why don't we ?
Model Manager | Enterprise Architecture & ArchiMate Advocate | Expert in MBSE, PLM, STEP Standards & Ontologies | Open Source Innovator(ArchiCG)
8moThanks for sharing, Marco Wobben. This consensus is important to identify. What is amazing is that, considering the number of individual viewpoints, some useful consensual models are emerging collectively, a kind of order coming out from chaos suggesting an ideal world, reflected by the actual one. Such models are continuously challenged by scientific approach. The multiplicity of knowledge and practices domains creates the babelisation syndrome issue and also reinforces intersubjectivity. An actual issue for multi disciplinary approaches required for complex problems solving.
Author of 'Enterprise Architecture Fundamentals', Founder & Owner of Caminao
8moTruth can only be considered with regard to assertions which can be expressed: - Nominally: with terms (A,B, ...) independently of any attachment to actual environments - Formally: with categories independently of any attachment to actual environments - Empirically: with categories defined in bounded semantic contexts attached to actual specific environments - Ontologically: as symbols of categories defined in unbounded contexts https://caminao.blog/overview/knowledge-kaleidoscope/reasoning/