SA comments of Ham's assertion that ... > Perceived experience is always differentiated and > relative to the subject. Hence, intellectual knowledge, > and the process of acquiring it, is a subject/object > phenomenon.
[SA]: > Yes and no. s/o, but one of integration exists, too, > where the categorizing or differentiation by somebody > doesn't differentiate an event into either s or o. > I'm referring to the process of s and o not just s or not > just o. As you say, your "perceiv(ing) experience" and > what you differentiate from this experience. This is a > process of s and o working together, not just the s or > the o doing all the work or involved in the experience. An "event" is a specific happening in a specific place. This is the object of experience, and it is differentiated from other events and by the fact that it is experienced by individual subjects. You say that intellectual knowledge "can be one of integration, too," but can you suggest an example of an "integrated" concept, principle, or fact of knowledge? Even Pirsig's Quality is perceived as Goodness, Truth, Excellence, or Rightness, relative to something else. [Ham]: > Subjectivity is rejected by Science. Scientific methodology > focuses entirely on objective data as interpreted by the intellect. [SA]: > No it's not, says who? Scientists know it is their subjectivity > in collaboration that decides how science will be interpreted. > Scientists are well aware of their methodology, their subjectivity, > may not be understanding the objective data that well, so > therefore, they do more tests, and ask others in different > geographies to do these tests. The more the same interpretation > is the outcome, the more reliable these interpretations become. > Philosophers sit with scientists in meetings and forums to help > discuss and sharpen the interpretation of data. I think a group of scientific researchers meeting with philosophers would be a very rare event, unless it was to discuss the "philosophy of science". The repetition of experiments you speak of is part of the scientific method. It ensures that the conclusions reached by the original investigator are confirmed universally. But that's not a subjective discussion; they're all performing the same experiment under the same controlled conditions. That's what makes it "objective". A number of scientists, including Stephen Gould and Nicholas Maxwell have recently pressed for a more "socially oriented" approach to Science, but they are few in number and tend to be authors and professors rather than practicing scientists. I found this summary of the 'The Scientific Method", which is more typical of this discipline: "The Scientific Method, through its testing of hypotheses, invites a kind of certainty absent from other approaches to knowledge, a universal validity that is not culture-bound. Anyone from any culture can perform the same experiment and get identical results. As long as we abide rigorously by the Scientific Method, we have a reliable way to distinguish fact from superstition, an intellectual razor that cuts through layers of cultural belief to get at the objective truth underneath. Finally, we are free from the bonds of subjectivity, the personal and cultural limits to understanding." Regards, Ham 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/
