subjectivity is objectivity undeciphered. — Agent Smith
I tend to think it’s the other way around. — Joshs
Man is the measure of all things. — Protagoras
My own meaning of objective is as something which lies beyond the individual and can be measured. I am not sure that there absolute 'truths', but that is not to say that everything is relative. — Jack Cummins
Agent Smith
subjectivity is objectivity undeciphered.
— Agent Smith
I tend to think it’s the other way around. — Joshs
:100: Feyerabend couldn't have said this any better.Science is not intended to be persuasive to people. Science is intended to be the most rational way to evaluate the world. People at their core are not rational, they are rationalizing. Rationalizing is the act of forming some type of explanation that justifies your own personal emotions and beliefs. Being rational requires effort, training, and character. Further, being rational is inefficient in most of your day to day living, so even rational people aren't going to be rational all the time.
You can lead a person to science, but it doesn't mean they'll accept it. Generally to persuade people, you have to use rationality in combination with addressing their emotional feelings. Many people will often times reject rational arguments in favor of their own personal feelings, but that doesn't mean science is currently one of the most valuable tools we have to accurately assess the world.
So I do agree that science alone will not persuade or motivate most people. It it wants to do so, it must make great efforts at creating the positive emotions in people that will make them open to accepting the rationality that science has to offer. — Philosophim
Only a method of inquiry (i.e. testing how I know what I think I know), science is not merely a worldview (i.e. socialized indoctrination/ideology-agnotology). It's the worst one for explaining aspects of the natural world (using other aspects of the natural world) except for all of the other "ways of knowing" tried so far. If you must, blame the prevalence of "reductive materialism" on what Marx critiqued as Capitalism's ubiquitious, or insideous, appeal (driver): "the commodity fetish" (i.e. mass consumerism à la Veblen's "conspicuous consumption"). Most folks, yourself included if I'm not mistaken, Jack, believe in antique ideas (& occult fantasies) which are far outside the scope of "reductive materialism" that are called "spiritual" "religious" "transpersonal" "supersensible" "mystical" "perennialist" "hermetic" "gnostic" etc from which they derive varying degrees of personal (psychological) meaning, and yet, insofar as such "seekers" are our contemporaries, they are also, at least, "lifestyle materialists".Science is not perfect. It's often misused. It's only a tool. But it's the best tool we have. — Carl Sagan
'It struck me as remarkable that people answer questions about science in two opposite ways today.
On the one hand, they often praise science for being value-free: objective, unbiased, neutral, a pure source of facts. Just as, as often, however, they speak of it as being itself a source of values, perhaps the only true source of them.' — Jack Cummins
Science is a form of culture in which life denies itself and refuses itself any value. It is a practical negation of life, which develops into a theoretical negation in the form of ideologies that reduces all possible knowledge to that of science, such as the human sciences whose very objectivity deprives them of their object: what value do statistics have faced with suicide, what do they say about the anguish and the despair that produce it? These ideologies have invaded the university, and are precipitating its destruction by eliminating life from research and teaching. Television is the truth of technology; it is the practice par excellence of barbarism: it reduces every event to current affairs, to incoherent and insignificant facts. — Michel Henri, Barbarism
Science is intended to be the most rational way to evaluate the world. — Philosophim
It's interesting that you mentioned Steven Pinker as well as Dennett, because I have been reading some of a book by Pinker, called, 'The Stuff of Thought.' I do find that it is important to read and listen to all points of view and I can usually see some rationality in arguments, even those which I disagree with basically. — Jack Cummins
Which old ideas do you think deserve more attention? Do you think that Western culture has gone too far in embracing relativism and plurality? — Jack Cummins
:100: Feyerabend couldn't have said this any better. — 180 Proof
One book, which looks at this is, 'The Myths We Live By', by Mary Midgley. She queries the neutrality of science, saying,
'It struck me as remarkable that people answer questions about science in two opposite ways today.
On the one hand, they often praise science for being value-free: objective, unbiased, neutral, a pure source of facts. Just as, as often, however, they speak of it as being itself a source of values, perhaps the only true source of them.' — Jack Cummins
On the one hand, they often praise science for being value-free: objective, unbiased, neutral, a pure source of facts. Just as, as often, however, they speak of it as being itself a source of values, perhaps the only true source of them.' — Jack Cummins
Science is a valid mode of knowing.
Philosophy is a valid mode of knowing.
Art is a valid mode of knowing.
Theology is a valid mode of knowing.
The problem is when science is epistemologically privileged over the others as a mode of knowing. Unfortunately we are in an era where the materialist reductionist perspective is dominant. — emancipate
he general point to make is to begin to distinguish the roles of quantitative analysis and qualitative judgement (a.k.a. 'value judgement') in human affairs. Science is grounded in quantitative analysis, even if judgement always plays a role in e.g. what to measure, what experiment to pursue, what is worth investigating, and so on.
...
From this it is hoped to arrive at the most general idea possible, an hypothesis, which unites disparate observations into a coherent theory. But it can only ever proceed in terms of what is measurable or quantifiable. So I don't agree that it is the most rational way to evaluate 'the world'. — Wayfarer
What is often missed, is that mathematics itself is a value structure, and is therefore dependent on, and based in "value judgement". — Metaphysician Undercover
Theology is a valid mode of knowing. — emancipate
I can't see how that can be true. Mathematics is purely quantitative, surely? 2 x 2 = 4 whether I like it or not, whether I think it's appealing or not. — Wayfarer
What is it we know from theology and what counts as theology? — Tom Storm
In its simplest form, a number is the value assigned to a group of things. Mathematicians work with values. — Metaphysician Undercover
A more interesting way of stating your question might be to ask whether there are values which are independent of human minds, i.e. objective values, which either correspond, or do not correspond with the conventional assignment of values. For example, is there an independent, objective value which corresponds with what is symbolized by 2? — Metaphysician Undercover
What criteria is used to distinguish valid from invalid? — Tom Storm
Ok, but by extension couldn't the Marvel universe also provide much meaning to some people - millions possibly? What criteria is used to distinguish valid from invalid? — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.