Re: The Objective-Scientific and the Subjective-Personal

Greg,
You've come up with a bunch of items. A partial answer to the whole is
that science depends on human intelligence, including language and
attitude. We have gone beyond our immediate sensations, using various
devices to detect and measure what we do not sense, and to refine the
measurement. Galileo's best technique for measuring short dirations was
his pulse, totally useless for milliseconds and finer divisions. Similar
considerations apply in other areas. But there are, from time to time,
indications that something cannot be tested because we do not have the
techniques available.

It is a commonplace that we do not look for what we do not name. This is
not absolute, for somebody comes along from time to time with a new
notion and gives it a name. The ancient Greeks got an idea of ultimate
stuff and used the term for wood to refer to it. Later the term substance
(what stands under) was used. The invention or discovery of a new way to
look at the familiar is the common basis for progress.

There is also the matter of interest. This will be tempered by the
availability of support. Can I be paid adequately to do this? Will
somebody support me to do this? These are vital questions. Unfortunately,
they are not always answered as one would desire. I recall meeting a
young man who had just been granted a doctorate in biology, who was
saying that he didn't want to be a biologist. I don't know the details,
but an earnest hope is that one will determine what is interesting before
grinding through a doctorate. Nevertheless, there are many persons who
keep bread on the table doing something that really doesn't interest them
that much, and pursue their interest as an avocation. A much better life
is to do what one loves and get paid for it.

Every commitment one makes rules out other possibilities. Sometimes there
is a deliberate decision: I have to give up that to do this. The fact is
that no one has the wits and the time to follow everything that may be
interesting. Sometimes a friend may note that a person gave up this to
pursue that, and get a response like: I never thought of it that way. I
just love what I'm doing.

With respect to Einstein's statement, note that physicists especially
depend on formulas to describe reality. On the one hand, mathematics
involves the continuum. Thus the decimal value of pi can be calculated to
billions of places with no end in sight, indeed, no end possible. But
there is always a limit to the precision of measurement. Further, if we
set up an apparatus to measure the time of fall, for example, we will not
get the number predicted by the formula every time, but there will be a
spread describable statistically. Done very carefully, the mean and
median will echo the formula, but reality cannot ignore the standard
deviation.

The commonalities of science and theology are that both are a human
endeavor. But the one compels me to seek empirical confirmation, although
the outer fringes may not be testable. I think of string theory/M theory
as examples. Some claim they'll never be testable, but I am more
sanguine. Theology does not have an empirical test. Christian orthodoxy
tests theology by scripture, but I note that there are different schools
of interpretation. Preterism has been recently noted. It counters
futurism. There are amillenialits, premillennialists, postmillenialists.
Etc. Add to all this those who modify scriptural teaching to conform to
various positions, lumped as liberalism. Both orthodox and liberal views
are at least partly determined by just how imaginative and informed the
proponent may be. I'd never have dreamed of either Glenn's or Dick's
views on the first chapters of Genesis. But I have been compelled to
yield, step by grudging step, positions I once held as I learned more.
Still, there is so much more to learn that I know the education will go
on when, by grace, I enter the presence of my Lord.
Dave

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
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 Wed Apr 19 22:40:19 2006