The Illusion of Objectivity

Lexile: 1150 | Grade: 12

Passage

For centuries, objectivity has been seen as the gold standard of knowledge—especially in science, journalism, and law. To be objective is to be neutral, unbiased, and detached from emotion. But in recent decades, philosophers, historians, and social theorists have begun to question whether true objectivity is even possible—or whether it has always been, to some degree, an illusion.

The idea of objective truth gained strength during the Enlightenment, when thinkers like Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton promoted empirical observation as the foundation of knowledge. Their belief was that with careful experimentation and reason, humans could discover truths that were universal and independent of personal perspective. This confidence shaped modern science and continues to influence how we define facts.

However, in the 20th century, challenges to this notion emerged. The philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued that science advances not through steady accumulation of facts, but through paradigm shifts—radical changes in how we interpret data. According to Kuhn, what we consider to be 'truth' is shaped by the dominant frameworks of the time, meaning that objectivity is always filtered through context.

Similarly, feminist scholars and postcolonial thinkers have pointed out that many so-called objective systems of knowledge have historically excluded voices based on gender, race, or geography. They argue that knowledge is not simply discovered—it is constructed, often reflecting the values and power structures of those who produce it.

This does not mean that all knowledge is equally valid or that facts are purely subjective. Rather, it encourages a more critical view: to ask who is speaking, whose voices are missing, and what assumptions shape our understanding. Objectivity may still be a valuable goal—but one that must be pursued with humility, awareness, and a willingness to question even our most trusted systems of thought.