Re: [asa] Objective vs. Subjective

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Nice topic, Nucacids, and a timely one at that. Jon??? J
>
>
>
> Could we not simplify define "objective" as being that which can be
> measured by all parties who should obtain the same result given an
> appropriate range of accuracy?
>
>
>
> Measurement is the foundation to science. If it can't be measured, it
> ain't science. [Sorry, multiuniverse theorists and IDers. J]
>
George,

> I would somewhat agree with you if by science you mean empirical
> science. Taking measurements (i.e., taking reproducible and accurate
> observations) is necessary. It probably is not sufficient, however.
>
 But are you also saying that pattern recognition programs aren't
measurements? I mean, they aren't measuring devices which take or produce
measurements?

I'm just thinking out loud here....
I think pattern recognition and design detection are strongly related. Rich
Blinne has said (in so many words) that the mathematics to recognize design
doesn't exist. If I understand him correctly, he suggests the math may be
impossible to develop and may not exist. He may be correct.

But if he is correct I wonder then whether pattern recognition really is
therefore supernatural in its intrinsic nature? That would be an astounding
suggestion!

 Every human on earth (except those who have something wrong with them) can
look at Mt Rushmore and tell that those faces werent carved by the wind. If
in doubt they can take a closer look, and go up to the surface and look at
the tool marks. Giant raindrops don't leave chisel marks. Surely this is
scientifically measurable. But is there really no mathmatical way to
formulate the measurement that every brain makes upon looking at Mt
Rushmore? If not, I still don't think we can jump to the conclusion that
the faces were made by something supernatural.
On the other hand, its obvious nature itself didn't carve them.

(And if the faces were carved on thse side of a canyon on Mars, and
therefore not of human origin, and had three eyes, two noses, and horns,
this would not change).

So Mt Rushmore wasnt made by the wind and the rain.

However, the pattern recognizer in the brain, if it isn't based on
_something_ that is rooted in physics, and therefore isn't backed by
something that can be understood in terms of mathematics (isn't backed
because the mathematics of design detection allegedly doesn't exist), must
therefore by definition be based on something that is instead itself
non-physical and non-natural. Wouldn't that be correct? What other answer
could there be? Its either part of the physical universe, or its part of
something else. Its either based on principles that are part of the
universe, or not.

But if not, does that make that _something_ supernatural in its nature?

I don't happen to think so. I think the mathematics upon which design
detectors are based does exist. But we just don't happen to yet know what
the math is. Obviously many disagree with this. But if it (the math) does
exist I don't see why anyone would say it is supernatural. Or that science
couldn't use it. People here keep saying again and again that either
design doesnt exist, or is not by definition measureable, and therefore has
to do with God. I just don't understand that claim. To me its
over-claiming.

Dave C

>
> Where parties can not agree on their respective observations the we are
> in the subjective realm since opinions and bias become key factors to the
> claims. Love, hate, etc. are subjective elements. Even if most might agree
> to relative strengths of these, what units of measure are assigned to them?
>
>
>
> Coope
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Nucacids
> *Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2009 1:48 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* [asa] Objective vs. Subjective
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We have all been shaped by a culture that assigns high value to "objective
> knowledge" and low value to "subjective knowledge." So it would help if we
> made an effort to define both the objective and the subjective.
>
>
>
> Let's begin with the dictionary, as the dictionary conveys the manner in
> which words are commonly understood and thus best reflects what people are
> trying to communicate. The dictionary defines 'objective' as follows:
>
>
>
> "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based
> on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
>
>
>
> intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with
> thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
>
>
>
> being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of
> thought rather than to the thinking subject
>
>
>
> of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an
> object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an
> observer as part of reality."
>
>
>
> We could coalesce these definitions and define objective knowledge to mean
> knowledge about things external to our minds that does not depend on
> feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. In other words, it is unbiased
> knowledge about the world around us.
>
>
>
> Now, let us use the dictionary to define 'subjective':
>
>
>
> "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the
> object of thought
>
>
>
> pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a
> subjective evaluation."
>
>
>
> So we can define subjective knowledge as that which exists in the mind,
> intertwined with someone's biases, and pertains to the one who holds the
> knowledge.
>
>
>
> Are there any problems with these definitions?
>
>
>
> - Mike Gene
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 5 23:27:33 2009