Another Definition Lakoff's dismantling of objectivism was easily grasped at a superficial level, but I had great difficulty understanding his claims. I'll postpone discussing them. My purpose here is to see what claims are being made for objectivism, and what role cognitive illusions of the Kahneman and Tversky variety play as evidence for or against objectivism, and how Lakoff's points rest on a narrow, technical definition of objective. I'll offer a definition I prefer.
Symbols get their meaning via correspondences to entities and categories in the world.
Suppose we have two blocks of wood, one weighing 10 lbs and one 20 lbs. It is presumably an objective relationship that one block is heavier than the other. Changing the scenario slightly produces inaccuracy. Cognitive illusions are recognized as such only because we know how the world really is. Their experiments are interesting only to other objectivist rationalists, because unless one believes in objective reality then one is not surprised by Kahneman and Tversky's results.