> I wrote in Jan 5: > > Science is not primarily concerned with facts; its main concern is > with theories; new facts are a concern insofar as, when confronted > with existing theories, better ones may be formulated.In other language, > scientists main concern is 'weaving' various intellectual patterns; > patterns that are essentially dynamic and > that (hopefully) will some day merge into one. It might be said that a > theory is primarily a form of insight, i.e. a way of looking at the world > , and not a form of knowledge of how the world is (David Bohm). > > ======== > To which Platt commented on Jan 10: > > I disagree. Theories are indeed important in science. But without facts > to test the theories, the theories are useless. The two go together like > subjects and objects -- theories being subjective, facts objective. > > ========== > > I wouldn't say that "facts are objective" but rather that scientists > presume that facts may be objectively observed. This is indeed a > sweeping assumption. > > A countless number of things is constantly happening in this world of > ours, from this countless number a scientist may select one and proceed > to observe it in detail; only then it might become "a fact". The key word > here is ' selection'. By ways of example: > > An astronomer is busily looking through his telescope. He's not just > looking around haphazardly to see whatever is happening in the sky that > particular night, he's 'looking for' something specific, something that > could be relevant to the theory or topic that interests him. If he's > lucky enough to find one of those phenomena, he'll observe it carefully > and record it. After this selection and recording, and after painful > corroboration, whatever he thought he observed, could be called a fact. > > Pretty much the same could be said about a fellow that busies himself > observing into a cloud chamber. From the countless things that his > elementary particles may be doing at any time, he 'selects' > just the one that interests him, say two positrons colliding > enthusiastically, and again, after painful corroboration, it may become a > fact. > > From this two examples I hope it is clear that the astronomer or > nuclear physicist, or any other scientist,is conscious that > establishing a fact is a process in which they have actively mingled, > so that the process of some event becoming a fact can hardly be > thought as 'objective'. > > Where objectivity really enters into the picture is in the scientists > belief that whatever happened (and, if it happened) was not altered, > modified, because of being observed. This is another sweeping assumption > which, as we all know, was criticized from within (another good point > for Science) largely by 'the facts' on which Quantum Theory was > proposed, nearly a century ago. > > Interestingly enough, Prof. Collingwood used to express the same views > about the so-called 'historical facts': Among the countless events > that happened at a particular moment in time, the historian, 'selects' > just the one that interests him; only when fitted inside his > narrative, whatever happened and, if it happened,becomes an historical > fact.
As you rightfully point out, there is a subjective element involved in every claim of a fact. That's one reason why I for one reject the subject- object division so prevalent in today's thinking, preferring the more realistic static-Dynamic morality division offered by Pirsig. But science is still captivated by the subject-object divided world, considering facts to be independent of any personal bias. Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
