peekadora liked this

fourth-axis liked this

pmfji reblogged this from prudencepaccard

pmfji liked this

cricket-on-the-moon liked this

jennybobenny73 reblogged this from tygermama

vaguepositivity liked this

random-nexus liked this

xethatthouknowestthine liked this

steejie liked this

steejie reblogged this from tygermama

sightseeinginskyrim reblogged this from tygermama

lilbunnifufu liked this

madebymoko liked this

rob-anybody liked this

marbleglove liked this

marvinetta liked this

tygermama reblogged this from everbright-mourning

everbright-mourning reblogged this from bobcatmoran

everbright-mourning liked this

moonsplits reblogged this from aikroa

moonsplits liked this

gunsli-01 liked this

gunsli-01 reblogged this from apatchworkstar

cloudytomboy reblogged this from gogglesque

apatchworkstar reblogged this from danidanidanica

drilnos liked this

danidanidanica reblogged this from alopexplasma

gwathdring said: Or if we’re talking about stuff like raw data. X was observed and then Y was observed. But at soon as you start slipping into describing structures you’re physically, socially, culturally or cognitively a part of … you’re no longer a third party and objectivity is out the window and we’re back to the above. Which is rather a lot of science.

gwathdring said: Fair enough. :) For me it very much comes down to not being able to define a system from within itself. We can create a scafolding that approximates definition and we have to, at some point, be satisfied with that. Objectivity is fine as a concept as long as, deep down, it isn’t really about objectivity *in opposition to subjectivity* but rather structure objectivity in opposition to casual observation.