When people normally talk about a unbiased perspective they are talking about objectively presenting, discussing or evaluating a given topic (within the realms of what is possible).
Saying it is impossible (which I think is tenuous at best, but I for the purposes of argument I will concede it) is not seeing the wood for the trees. As long as people are trying to be objective (even if they fail) it is much better than just giving up and just not even attempting.
Many people seems to think of things in terms of absolutes. Just because you cannot being completely objective it doesn't mean that one shouldn't try.
Nobody said you shouldn't try. But part of that is calling out those who talk of being "unbiased" or "objective" not as a shorthand, but as something they seen think is actually within their possession.
> It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost.
-- C.S. Lewis
> We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
The rationale behind that statements leads to the attitude of not even attempting to be objective. So while you are correct the statement on its own does not state that. I believe it will lead many to believe it isn't worth the attempt. I believe that to be dangerous because it then allows you to engage in sophistry.
> The rationale behind that statements leads to the attitude of not even attempting to be objective.
What is "the rationale behind that statement", other than intellectual honesty? The statement is true, not even attempting to be objective does not follow from it. Denying it to achieve something that isn't even gained by its denial is a refusal to be more objective, plain and simple.
> So while you are correct the statement on its own does not state that
.. I'm still at -1. Not because what I said is wrong, but because some would prefer it to be wrong or something.
> I believe that to be dangerous because it then allows you to engage in sophistry.
That also doesn't follow. I would even say that is sophistry. The statement is true, it doesn't become untrue because of things you claim would follow from it, even if you had shown how they follow from it, which you did not.
I don’t even believe that being unbiased is impossible so I do not even believe it is a true statement to begin with. I believe it is said by those that want to justify their sophistry.
I fundamentally don’t think you understand what I am saying from this reply. Therefore I think any discussion past this point on this matter is worthless.
I've setup my own instance on a VPS of searx (along with git, blog, private npm and a few other bits and pieces). It isn't particularly hard if you've setup an website on a Linux box before.
I want to host my personal instance. But doing so doesn't make any sense since if I'm alone using it. So I'm better off using Google directly, unless someone can search whatever he wants via a service I'm hosting :/
Well if you use google directly, google can track what you are doing. However if you use your own searx instance that is very difficult. I also host my instance publicly (I've not added to the list because I am using the cheapest VPS from vultr) and for some things I get better results than Google, DuckDuckGo etc.
So as with many things it is swings and roundabouts and is determined on what you want to do. I wouldn't call the model flawed, it just seems that the benefits of it aren't what you want. Which is fine.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ke4nq