Hi Billy, Well said. I think we are aligned around “the pursuit of objectivity” as a goal; my main quibble is with those who claim to have “achieved objectivity.”
E Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:29, Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Billy, > Here you go https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/about/ > >> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 8:52 am Billy Rojas, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Dr. Navayan: >> >> I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and subjectivity >> >> useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog. >> >> >> May I ask the name of your blog? I'm curious and would like to visit your >> site. >> >> >> sincerely >> >> Billy Rojas >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> >> From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas >> Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct? >> >> Billy Rojas, >> I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With >> your name. >> >>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Ernie: >>> >>> There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is >>> >>> no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my >>> viewpoint >>> >>> is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce. >>> >>> >>> Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a >>> procedure >>> >>> like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict >>> the weather >>> >>> or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) >>> earthquakes >>> >>> in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design >>> great bridges >>> >>> that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a >>> wide >>> variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology >>> >>> to molecular engineering. >>> >>> >>> We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters >>> >>> to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar. So far >>> >>> there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how >>> >>> far we have progressed since, say, 1750. >>> >>> Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases >>> >>> where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play >>> >>> which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method. >>> >>> >>> That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard >>> the >>> >>> worth and reality of the spiritual realm; and this is subjective in many >>> senses. >>> >>> However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences >>> >>> to religion, either. Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific >>> >>> scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain. As such this >>> >>> manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking >>> >>> set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to >>> >>> microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and >>> >>> understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term >>> >>> "religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized >>> >>> as communication from a life-affirming unseen source. >>> >>> To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard >>> vocabulary >>> >>> of "objective" and "subjective." I may well adopt a neologism now and >>> >>> then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not >>> >>> muddy the waters. >>> >>> >>> This said, there is far better language available to talk about >>> >>> religion -aka spirituality- than with antiseptic terms and abstractions. >>> >>> Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by >>> Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes, >>> >>> or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada. >>> >>> >>> Billy >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Centroids <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: Billy Rojas >>> Subject: Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social >>> Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus >>> >>> I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word >>> “objectivity.” How do you define it? >>> >>> For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to >>> affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having >>> to defend a claim to objectivity. >>> >>> E >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 08:12, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible >>>> anyway, >>>> >>>> is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s, >>>> >>>> Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity >>>> >>>> in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide >>>> >>>> to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence >>>> >>>> to virulent strains of populism. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version >>>> >>>> of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since. >>>> >>>> It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into >>>> >>>> full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Finally, I define RC in large part as research centered. >>>> >>>> This refers to the scientific method, or as much of that method >>>> >>>> as we can make use of in ordinary prose. For me this means >>>> >>>> that objectivity, as much objectivity as possible, >>>> >>>> is the necessary foundation of Radical Centrism. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community >>> <[email protected]> >>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >>> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
