The Objective-Scientific and the Subjective-Personal

  
Recently the topic ‘philosophy of science’ has resurfaced at ASA. Since I have been participating in a series of lectures and seminars on the topic of ‘history and philosophy of science,’ and since the experienced physicist-philosopher in the group has time and again brought apparently subjective views into the discussion, perhaps raising this issue at ASA would be suitable. It would appear that the borders and boundaries between science and art, science and poetry, method and system, are not as far removed from each other as they might commonly seem, even if some specialists would like it that way. If scientists are not required to check their personalities at the door, then there might be something to dialogue about here.
   
  The truth may be that a ‘double hermeneutic’ approach is needed where previously scientists have felt a strong need to strive for objectivity (or a single hermeneutic) as the only legitimate goal. When we witness research programs falsified by biased experiments or tailored information, this problematic becomes most clear. I take this ‘double hermeneutic’ approach up from another physicist-turned-philosopher/theologian whom I met two years ago, though it seems he got it from Gadamer or Lakatos or… (could someone please help remind here?).
   
  It need not be considered unscientific to take notes from the person-scientist of the 20th century: “As far as the proposition of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Albert Einstein
   
  Maybe one of the problems with American analytic-pragmatic science (to use a broad, over-generalization) is that it sometimes loses track of the individual scientist who does/practises his or her thing in the field. At the same time, the Youth of the Nation have discovered the personalism that science can exude when it is not entirely focussed on objectivizing (cf. fragmenting, specializing) knowledge.
   
  It is not incidental to note that the extra-scientific views/beliefs of those who accept the platform of ICS do in fact affect their ‘science.’ There need not be a discussion of the boundaries of what is or is not (i.e. what counts as) ‘science’ to simply note the regularity with which ‘subjective’ views affect ‘objective’ claims to knowledge and truth. Getting at the root of this dilemma may require a clearer exposition on what ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ views of science may or may not entail, and how historians and philosophers of science can help us to acknowledge them.
   
  Please excuse that this topic could probably have been raised by more eloquent persons than myself. Notably, Ted Davis at ASA is a historian/philosopher of science who could probably elaborate on this issue much more professionally. Nonetheless, the recognition that all people are situated and contextualized in their knowledge, according to the real diversity of scientific and non-scientific knowledge, is taken as duly relevant.
   
  Of course, this is all asked somewhat philosophically by someone who would prefer to identify commonalities between science and theology, rather than splits and differences. But such inclinations to unity are likely already well-known at ASA, where psychology, sociology, economics, biology, chemistry, botany, geology and astro-physics are all welcomed to the discussion table as equal partners in furthering the reach of human knowledge and understanding.
   
  G. Arago

                
---------------------------------
Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance
Received on Tue Apr 18 17:46:01 2006