Philosophy is for critiquing, without that it loses all sense, and becomes some kind of religion — Janus
This all serves to set up the thesis that science neglects experience and the human perspective when, to the contrary, science has always been grounded in experience and observation. — Andrew M
The authors address that exact point, with reference to Hempel's dilemma — Wayfarer
Incidentally nobody has taken a shot at an alternative term for 'lived experience'. — Wayfarer
Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there. — Pattern-chaser
But observation does, that is irrefutable. — Wayfarer
We're clearly not apes. — Wayfarer
Do you mean that tools as extentions of our experiencing make the observation? This would still be empirical, or? And it would be human action? Or are we talking about observation collapsing the superposition?I'm positive that StreetlightX explained to you at least once before (I can't recall the thread, but I know I read it not too long ago) that observation/measurement in the sciences does not imply human observation or human actions. It simply refers to interaction with other things. — Terrapin Station
We can't reject the human perspective. Our observations for example are time and location bound. IOW they are made from primate bodies who experience time not as another dimension (all at once) but as unfolding. The observations are thought about/interpreted by brains that imagine and model based our sensory and motor systems and metaphors based on the perspective inherent in this. There may well be other ways that we experience that affects fundamental aspects of our observations.Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there. — Pattern-chaser
Do you mean that tools as extentions of our experiencing make the observation? — Coben
Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there. — Pattern-chaser
There's a belief that humans can be impartial/unbiased, at least in conjunction with each other. That's not rejecting human perspective. It's seen as a feature of the human perspective.
I'm not saying I agree that we can be impartial/unbiased, but the view that we can and should be isn't actually rejecting the human perspective. — Terrapin Station
We can't reject the human perspective. — Coben
I can't see how, for the reasons I mentioned. Science is based on our observations. Our observations have to do with us beings that, for example, experience time as unfolding, rather than all at once. Our observations are coming through limited beings - both in space and time - and are biased because of this. Scientists can try to eliminate many factors, but they can never know what biases are created simply by being limited, time bound creatures. It is an empirical epistemology, dependent on our experiences. And this is not to say they can't manage to find out all sorts of stuff or that science is merely subjective. But we cannot eliminate all that it being we who do the science will have certain biases.No, we can't, or maybe shouldn't, reject the human perspective, but science does, — Pattern-chaser
So do you disagree that there's a common belief that humans can be impartial/unbiased, at least in conjunction with each other? — Terrapin Station
No, we can't, or maybe shouldn't, reject the human perspective, but science does, — Pattern-chaser
I can't see how, for the reasons I mentioned. Science is based on our observations. Our observations have to do with us beings that, for example, experience time as unfolding, rather than all at once. Our observations are coming through limited beings - both in space and time - and are biased because of this. Scientists can try to eliminate many factors, but they can never know what biases are created simply by being limited, time bound creatures. — Coben
No, I don't. We can (sometimes) act thusly. But when we do, we necessarily set aside our 'human perspective', which is the biased and partial way we (generally and usually) look at the world. — Pattern-chaser
I'm asking if you agree that there is such a belief? — Terrapin Station
So do you disagree that there's a common belief that humans can be impartial/unbiased, at least in conjunction with each other? — Terrapin Station
No, I don't. — Pattern-chaser
And if we acknowledge that we have just built a model of what we experience, then we can't use that model to say what we are made of and what we can or cannot do, because it is not a model of ourselves, it is a model of what we experience. — leo
ALl due respect, you're not appreciating the point being made. As we have discussed philosophy of physics many times, think about this in relation to the Bohr-Einstein debates. Einstein was a convinced realist who believed exactly that physics should provide a grasp of sub-atomic phenomena 'as they are in themselves'. It was Heisenberg (so, the Copenhagen interpretation) who said that 'What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Einstein debated Henri Bergson in public forums about exactly the question of 'experiential time'. And the scientific view, by purportedly arriving at a quantitative understanding of the primary qualities of phenomena, does indeed aspire to what Thomas Nagel has described as 'the view from nowhere', which, I contend, amounts to the absolutisation of knowledge. This is why the discovery of uncertainty (which you solve with respect to the belief in 'many worlds') is such a big deal! — Wayfarer
I will sign off with the quotation of the concluding paragraph of the article:
To finally ‘see’ the Blind Spot is to wake up from a delusion of absolute knowledge. It’s also to embrace the hope that we can create a new scientific culture, in which we see ourselves both as an expression of nature and as a source of nature’s self-understanding. We need nothing less than a science nourished by this sensibility for humanity to flourish in the new millennium. — Wayfarer
This all serves to set up the thesis that science neglects experience and the human perspective when, to the contrary, science has always been grounded in experience and observation.
— Andrew M
Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there. — Pattern-chaser
I'm positive that StreetlightX explained to you at least once before (I can't recall the thread, but I know I read it not too long ago) that observation/measurement in the sciences does not imply human observation or human actions. It simply refers to interaction with other things. — Terrapin Station
Alot of two-bit philosophy of science would be cleared up were people to call 'observation' in science by its proper name, measurement. — StreetlightX
Things interacting with each other is not observation, by any stretch of the imagination. — Metaphysician Undercover
"A hominoid, commonly called an ape, is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the gibbons (lesser apes, family Hylobatidae) and the hominids. A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans." — Baden
am I missing something? — Andrew M
It takes a human (or similarly sentient being) to experience and model that world but there's nothing preventing the modeling of the modeler themselves. — Andrew M
science implicitly depends on the human perspective. — Andrew M
these are all philosophical disputes about how to interpret the science. But one can take a realist position while rejecting characterizations such as "phenomena as they are in themselves" or "the view from nowhere" — Andrew M
So this seems like a radical call to ... do what we're already doing now! — Andrew M
instruments make measurements — Metaphysician Undercover
So the appeal to humans as simply being apes is biological reductionism... — Wayfarer
Philosophy is not competition, it's co-operative learning. So it's not uncritical, but the criticism is just one part of the inquiry process. Philosophy is not for "critiquing", and it does not depend on it, or its lack, for it to be "sense", I don't think. — Pattern-chaser
Neither instruments nor apparatus are self-assembling and self-operating, they are constructed devices by definition. — Wayfarer
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.