Platt writes in Jan 14:
"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."
========
My comments:
Starting by Platt's: "But science is still captivated
by the subject-object divided world".
It is so indeed; 'captivated'in the sense of being
kept captive by the S/O division. For the simplest
reason that no one, to my knowledge, has proposed a
better method of doing scientific research.
Which ties up with the second part of the sen tence:
"considering facts to be independent of any personal
bias"; which, if you don't mind me rephrasing it, I'd
write as: "trying, as much as possible, to make
observations independent of any human bias". The
rephrasing because facts and observations are not
quite the same, as I commented in a previous post;
"trying to" because a scientist is aware that human
bias play a role in his work; he does it's utmost to
'minimize' it. Perhaps an example will be helpful:
Suppose the scientist is studying the partial
pressures of carbon dioxide at different heights in
the atmosphere. Her data may be important as an
evidence for or against global warming, a subject
being hotly debated in this Thread.
Now, she cannot afford that, if she repeats the
measurements next week, they could be influenced by
her being melancholic or euphoric or whatever. The
measurements, as far as possible, have to be
independent of her personal moods (and all that which
we choose to call subjective). In short, her
measurements must be 'reproducible' within an accepted
experimental error; if she allows her personal biases,
moods, headaches,etc., interfere with the measurements
then the experimental error will be so large that the
results will be good for nothing.
Furthermore, since global warming is a hot subject
(not a bad pun that!) many other scientits will
attempt to reproduce her results. It just won't do if
a scientist in some remote country will get different
results because he happens to be a moslem or a taoist,
with entirely different worldviews.It just won't do.
The public at large wants to be informed about
whether or not climate changes are correlated with CO2
levels. For this it relies entirely on data from
scientific research. Reproducibility of results lies
at the chore of experimental science. You do away with
it by removing the S/0 distinction and said
experimental science becomes worthless.
You write: "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."
The question that arises is: is it possible to do
experimental scientific research using "the more
realistic static- Dynamic morality division" instead
of the S/O division?
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
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/
