Subjectivity/Objectivity and evidence in science and philosophy

Yes, we can escape the opinion part. It is called empirical facts.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:178, topic:35961”]
Your slip is showing! [by that I mean ‘philosophy’]. Have you been reading what I wrote? I would have to labor hard (and fail) to find any scientist who has not been heavily influenced by philosophy. Maybe not the formal “arcane” details they so love to deride. I’m talking about real philosophy where the rubber meets the road.
[/quote]

And . . . ?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:178, topic:35961”]
Amen to that! And the subjectively apprehended truths may [I argue: do] include a few important objective truths too, such as one that Joshua brought up above. We just have a much harder time convincing each other over these since they aren’t amenable to empirical testing. That doesn’t make them any less potentially true or less potentially important.
[/quote]

How can you know they are true if you can’t test them against facts?

Then your metaphor makes no sense.

The whole point of finding the truth is to narrow your vision onto the truth, not cast it wide on things that are fantasies, wishes, and opinions. If you can’t demonstrate that something is true, then why think it is true?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:179, topic:35961”]
I’m following him in that much needed cultural self-reflection (with all its gloriously attendant philosophies). And I invite others to the same. There are disconcertingly many things where “the jury is still out”.
[/quote]

There are many subjective aspects of humanity, that I will agree with.

I think it comes down to how scientists view their work. Scientists are pragmatists. Philosophers are not. The vast majority of scientists are able to do top notch science without knowing anything about philosophers or philosophy. When scientists ask philosophers what they can offer them, they get very little in return. Popper came up with the idea that you can’t prove a universal negative, but scientists already kind of knew that. Kuhn talks about paradigm shifts, but theories had come and gone well before Kuhn. Not to overuse Weinberg, but I agree with many of his sentiments:

“Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.”–Steven Weinberg

That is funny, and as a physicist I would be inclined to agree. Not to the dramatic point that philosophy is dead, and there is a better form of knowing. I think most could agreet a an increasingly weak case when your main argument is a philosophical technicality like with William Lane Craig. I particularly enjoyed the debate between him (someone who knows philosophy) and Sean Carrol (someone who knows science and some philosophy). Normally when debating scientists WLC does quite well but this debate was definitely not one of them and my personal favorite. (One debate link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8)

This could’ve been written in the 19th century. It’s the kind of thinking Dostoevsky was already poking fun at in “Notes from the Underground.” As before, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I was just wondering if you had a basis for all that confidence that exudes out of you … :wink:

I’m pretty certain of it. It makes the most sense out of all the data, such as the “Messianic secret” motif. We can kick it around more in another thread, if anyone besides the two of us is interested.

I never felt that you crossed the line. You tip-toed up real close to it, though. Haha

1 Like

@T_aquaticus,

We are back at this, Mr. T? @Swamidass is not discussing pure science. He is discussing the fusion of science with faith.

Read Hume … and how feelings, emotions and non-rational cognitive processes are the heart of humanity…

3 Likes

@T_aquaticus,

Until you understand what @Mervin_Bitikofer is writing in this paragraph, you will never understand Theists.

Please tell me you’re just kidding with this! By the way, did you ever answer Joshua’s question about whether or not we should believe in human rights? Do you really want to turn skeptical on that?

Good. That’s a healthy and hopeful sign. That means that you think something might probably be true even when it hasn’t been or perhaps can’t be objectively verified.

There is much in here to respect beyond my initial reactions against what I was imagining of Weinberg from above. At least here there is some acknowledgment of at least some philosophy rather than a primitive dismissal of all of it. He lapses back into error toward the end of it a bit I think by again imagining there is some big contest in which philosophers are supposed to be proving the worth of their trade on scientific grounds. But even so, this still has some hopeful nuance.

2 Likes

Well, since George was at least somewhat impressed (thank you, George!) I should take the time to clarify and even correct a few hasty words of mine. So when I wrote …

But in the end, it is still an opinion as to how we rate that evidence too. Objectivity is not in question. Our opinions may be, and science can help some with this.

Let me clarify that when I said Objectivity is not in question, what I really meant was that objective truth (reality) does exist as I’m sure we all here agree. And on the opposite token, our human appraisal of that reality can never be 100% objective. I.e. there is no question that pure objectivity on just about anything will never be attainable for the human mind. We get closer on some things more than others, yes – and science is a strong player helping that to happen. But never complete. So when @T_aquaticus says that science is objective because it has established facts, I don’t think it is quite that easy. Yes, there are many facts we are happy to consider established. But it is still going to involve opinion in at least some degree as to whether we accept a consensus appraisal of evidence or do we on this or that point strike out against the consensus? Perhaps hoping to forge revolutionary new paradigms (as Einstein did) or perhaps just mistrusting large bodies of experts or writing consensus off as conspiracy (as some science deniers today do.) Whatever your motivation there will always be opinion involved --hopefully well-warranted opinion if you are professionally pushing something, but opinion nonetheless. I guess what I’m saying here is that concepts like “opinion” and “fact” are really on a continuum without a hard dividing line to neatly separate the two. For useful communication we do agree to call lots of things facts – those are the things that lots of the most accessible (empirical) evidence. But it still has just a smidgen of opinion since it isn’t really 100% proven, and it is even more into areas of opinion when and how we choose to enlist any such fact and for what purposes. Objectivity is, I think, a high ideal that we rightly hold up not just with science but in general. And yet we (scientists included) will probably spend most of our lives mucking about in subjective things and with subjective motivations being human as we are even in the laboratory. We rightly try to reduce that as much as we can, but we never completely get rid of it.

That’s all my drum-banging for tonight. Hope I didn’t give anybody a headache!

I have not read all on this issue, but I offer these comments in the hope for some clarity (instead it may add to the confusion :blush:).

The exuberant subjective view of science by @T_aquaticus is somewhat entertaining. I think some of the comments on “subjective”, “objective”, “truth” “evidence” (all terribly philosophical terms) may be better understood as “scientists have opinions and seek facts”. I have yet to meet a scientist who did not offer an opinion (on much data and experimentation), and I have yet to meet one who did not favour some theory over another (this is often harder to discuss without bringing in uncertainty and the type of experiment performed).

This talk of evidence is strange to my scientific ears - one seeks evidence when discussing a mystery. Scientists seek to add to the knowledge and insights of their chosen discipline, and none can say this is philosophy.

3 Likes

Thanks for the clarity, George. Perhaps we are used to different contexts around certain words depending what part of the world we’re from. I know you and I are across the puddle from each other and I don’t know about T_aquaticus. Regarding your last line I pasted above, I think I’m using a broader definition for philosophy than perhaps you or T_, who might well be assuming something stricter. Maybe that would explain our misunderstandings.

I should have added Mervin, that as a scientist I have spent a considerable amount of time reading (and trying to understand) philosophers of interest and PoS - while I cannot think of any that defined an experiment or clarified a scientific problem for me, I can unequivocally state that my ability to think and approach scientific theory from various vantages has benefited to an enormous extent from my effort at understanding some philosophy. I recommend this approach to any aspiring scientist.

1 Like

Perhaps we should go back to my previous statement:

“I will leave it up to you and other Christians to decide how science impacts your theology and interpretation of scripture. What I am more interested in is what the science allows us to include as being supported by evidence, not necessarily exclude. The same data could allow for a situation Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa were snatched up by aliens and transported back in time where they became the genealogical parents of all of humanity. It becomes a bit of a Cosmic Teapot or a “Dragon in My Garage” situation, to name a few famous examples of the same type of argument.”

I am also talking about the intersection of science and faith. A quick google for “Cosmic Teapot” should land you on a webpage explaining that whole diddy.

What I am saying is that I (as in me) am more interested in what can be shown to exist, not simply things that haven’t been shown to not exist. I completely agree that when you can’t show something to exist with positive evidence that faith enters into the mix.

I find it interesting that you won’t answer my question, but want me to repeat an answer I already gave to someone else’s question. Not very helpful.

I have already said that human rights are a subjective belief about how humans want to govern themselves. They aren’t an objective part of the universe. Human rights aren’t true in the same way that Mercury being a planet is true. In the words of Hume, human rights are how things ought to be according to humans, not how things are.

So can you answer my question?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:188, topic:35961”]
He lapses back into error toward the end of it a bit I think by again imagining there is some big contest in which philosophers are supposed to be proving the worth of their trade on scientific grounds. But even so, this still has some hopeful nuance.
[/quote]

There is no contest. Philosophy just simply hasn’t been that useful in science.

I understand it just fine. It is partly why I am an atheist.

It is understood that way by some theists, no doubt. Scientific theories aren’t opinions. It isn’t an opinion that microoorganisms cause diseases. It isn’t an opinion that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. It isn’t an opinion that water is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen. Just because scientists may have opinions does not mean that all of science is opinions.

@T_aquaticus

If you are here to discuss Theism, you need to remember how Theism works for Theists …
… not how Theism aggravates you.

Facts are facts … and I concur that this is the best method for dealing with textual analysis…

But in that area of “Faith” or “Belief” … talking about facts becomes a more malleable thing…
We pile up 10 sloppy facts … and for some that is more powerful than 3 concrete facts.

1 Like

To understand it is not to criticize when it happens…

1 Like

@T_aquaticus

For the heck of it … if you think it’s worth mentioning… what exactly is it that you think is not being shown to exist (for the purpose of this recent discussion) ?

1 Like

Theism doesn’t aggravate me.

The problem is that facts are even being cast into doubt. They are being described as opinions. At times, it is an attempt at a false equivalency when one side’s argument is not backed by facts.

1 Like