User talk:Jblev2

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Shalom Hello 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

January 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-- Snowded TALK  20:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

i dont think i was vandalizing anything
i just made changes to what objectivity is on the page, which is using a term from before the 1950's

objectivity is accepted among all scientists and statisticians to not exist, nothing is mind independent and the terms you are using to describe it relate to authoritative efforts of control...people mask subjectivity with an attempt to prove objectivity

2+2=4

is true to us, math is a language that we use to describe something and you may have an objective to find out what 2+2 is but it is always 4, which isn't mind independent still, it is 4 not because of our goals to find out what it was but because we are describing what this natural phenomenon of 2+2=4, it is a description of something we believe, is it wrong, no but could it be wrong, of course, we know it isnt but

that is an obvious example but think in statistical analysis or any sort of math or science there are no objectives in reality...stuff happens, our objective has nothing to do with it, objectivity is in fact subjectivity in disguise and skewed faulty subjectivity

it is kind of a mixed up concept of mathematical proof which is different than objectivity

or you are saying objectivity is the only truth when objectivity is by default skewed because people are trying to say their opinion or experience of reality has no skew on it, which it frequently does and no matter what our we say our understanding or experience is what we are describing

all this is an attempt to make knowledge unquestionable and to say what one person thinks is correct no matter what as if not based on what they experience or believe in their mind, which as we have seen throughout history it is typically wrong, and it is a biblical concept that god says the way things work or tells us something so we do it...as in we work for the lord...it is a very manipulative concept

also think about objectivity in other people's opinions, it is just an open door to lie in the name of absolute truth and to make people think all the same thing or all the same way

and not just because of overlapping concepts in science or math, people have tried to exploit objectivity in the arts and psychology as well

not to mention they are mixing objective and objectivity as similar concepts, as if what they want to find out is true...its your goal to find something out therefore you make it true, i know this isnt what they always imply but the concepts do get mixed like they are on the wiki page, tvym Jblev2 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion. Any edit to the page needs to be backed up by reliable sources and if your edits are challenged then you should use the talk page not edit war.-- Snowded  TALK  22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

its not my opinion, its the truth, do you want evidence from journals posted here or should i just edit the page after i get them?Jblev2 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"In response to Locke’s line of thinking, Immanuel Kant used the expression “Ding an sich” (the “thing-in-itself”) to designate pure objectivity. The Ding an sich is the object as it is in itself, independent of the features of any subjective perception of it. While Locke was optimistic about scientific knowledge of the true objective (primary) characteristics of things, Kant, influenced by skeptical arguments from David Hume, asserted that we can know nothing regarding the true nature of the Ding an sich, other than that it exists. Scientific knowledge, according to Kant, is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as they appear to us subjects rather than as they are in themselves."

This is from the University of Tennessee's website on Objectivity.

Immanuel Kant is only one of many philosophers to argue this. Considering Kant guided the enlightenment and is one of the most influential philosophers of all time and your page is objectivity in relation to philosophy I thought you should have some intelligent statements on there...since it is the people's encyclopedia.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2a

Jblev2 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You make the case for a change on the talk page of the article. However the purpose of any article is to reflect its subject, not to take the position of any one school of thought.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

the "school of thought" in question is objectivity within philosophy, you should present all philosophical "schools of thought" on the "subject," as you say...and kant is talking about objectivity...i will present evidence on other philosophical concepts of the "subject"

and it is really an absolute an obvious fact and there is absolutely no question that objectivity does not actually exist and while we all seek objective truths, people exploit the concept to establish facts that are in fact not objective...i will provide evidence on the talk page for the subject later


 * I suggest you spend less time saying that things are an absolute obvious fact when the literature disagrees with you. You need reliable third party references, not your own arguments-- Snowded  TALK  18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

'Some people regard science as objective in this sense and this objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them.[citation needed] It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction.[citation needed]

However, this traditional view about objectivity ignores several things. First, the selection of the specific object to measure is typically a subjective decision and it often involves reductionism. Second, and potentially much more problematic, is the selection of instruments (tools) and the selection of the measurement methodology. Some features or qualities of the object under study will be ignored in the measurement process and the limitations of the chosen instruments will cause data to be left out of consideration. In addition to these absolute limits of objectivity surrounding the measurement process, any given community of researchers often shares certain "subjective views" and this subjectivity is therefore built in to the conceptual systems; and it can even be built in to the design of the tools used for measurement. Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in some—or maybe all—situations.'

That is from wikipedia's concept of objectivity in science. I think the same applies here, and I do not believe there is literature that can prove otherwise, and I will present further proof of this later today on the talk page. Again tyvm Jblev2 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way calling these things my opinion is a joke, since we all decide what objectivity is as accepted subjective concepts, and you know the literature proves me right, even your own literature on wikipedia does so...

I also think your anger and finger pointing shows you are insecure.

Jblev2 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Keith Allen


A tag has been placed on Michael Keith Allen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  GB fan  03:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your note on Talk:Michael Keith Allen. Wikipedia is not the place to try to help find him.  Articles here are only supposed to be created about notable people.  When I first saw the article there was nothing in the article that said he was significant in any way other than being missing.  If there has been significant coverage in reliable sources of his disappearance then an article might be appropriate for the disapearance.  When I looked before tagging the article for deletion I looked and did not find enough coverage to justify an article.  If I was wrong I will help you get the article going.  Hope this helps tell you why the article was deleted.   GB  fan  04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)