Re: The Quest for Scientific Objectivity

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Judith,

I agree whole-heartedly. Great post! Thanks!

Another way to see the subjectivities inherent in western
science's so-called objectivity is to consider the difference
between pre-analytical and analytical stages of science or
knowledge or inquiry. Mario Giampietro makes this point
in his new book, Multi-scale Integrated Analysis of Agro-
ecosystems (in which he credits R. Rosen with "gigantic
contributions" that helped him get to his current
understanding). Pre-analytical steps include agreeing on
what are valid questions, what are system boundaries,
what are meaningful processes, what kinds of knowledge
are useful, what is the relationship of observer/human to
system of study/interaction/participation, etc. etc. In all
these steps, all of which have to occur even for western
science, there are tons of subjective and value-based
decisions, choices, biases, etc. either individual or done in
community/group/society/culture.

The upshot of this distinction is that western science's
fruits of objective truth - the universal constants for ex.
like speed of light - would not even make the pre-analytical
first cut for many peoples, many minds, many value and
belief systems, yet these peoples and their world views
cannot be said to be any less authentic and real and valid
than the western science frame of reference. Aboriginal
peoples may not see the value in knowing or confirming
the speed of light - does this knowledge help you survive?
Does it help you find food or care for your family in a
certain home region, like a desert or jungle? Does it help
you live long and well? If not, then it would never proceed
to the analytical stage, and thus would be outside the
realm of meaning. It's truth, whatever it might be to some
other people with some other organic or artificial link to
"ground" of a real home bioregion, would be zero to those
who would never bother to go through the analysis to
discover, reproduce, verify or discuss the speed of light, or
to develop some technology or tool or machine based on
that knowledge.

To reverse the point - the reality or truth of a certain
function of a medicine plant might never make the
pre-analytical first cut for a western scientist and thus its
objective truth would likewise be zero in that frame. The
western scientist might also not be able to locate the plant,
or process it in the required way, and so s/he would also
not be able to verify or test the truth claim either.

Dan

Judith Rosen wrote:
> *Howard Pattee wrote: *Obviously, human knowledge of Nature originates 
> with human perceptions.
> Obviously, all human knowledge depends on human experience. But there is no
> logic that says that human perceptions and experience can't discover
> properties of Nature over which humans have no influence, and there is
> plenty of experimental evidence that such properties exist.
> *I actually agree with this, 100%. I wasn't arguing an opposing view to 
> this sentiment. *
> ** 
> *What I was arguing was that _objectivity is relative._ Science doesn't 
> exist outside of human minds, so it strikes me as rather silly for 
> science to try to divorce ourselves from ourselves in some vain and 
> futile attempt to achieve complete scientific "objectivity". I think we 
> can only be /more/ objective or /less/ objective, but not /totally/ 
> objective-- because there is no way for us to be anything other than 
> human. *
> ** 
> *Trying to be /more/ objective is an interesting conundrum... for 
> instance, how do we KNOW if we are being "more" objective? There is 
> always a danger, and I think science has been living in the danger zone 
> for a long time now, that our efforts to be totally objective are 
> actually creating and injecting more artifactual crap masquerading as 
> information into our attempts to learn about the universe and ourselves.*
> ** 
> *Part of he reason Aristotle's fourth category of causation (Final 
> Causation) and all notions of /function/ or need/requirement are 
> anathema to physics is because of a fear that it imputes a human value 
> system on some non-human system. That may occasionally be a justified 
> fear... but it may also be true that the reason humans recognize the 
> concept of function in other organisms ("biological systems") is 
> because, as organisms, we are very well acquainted with functional 
> entailments ourselves. It's built in.*
> ** 
> *I was making the point in support of my father's position that notions 
> of function are not anthropomorphisms. These ideas are, he 
> said, perfectly scientific and can be "rigorously" studied via science. 
> His view was that "objectivity" is not the holy grail of science; 
> knowledge is. And he felt you can achieve knowledge while using 
> objectivity in moderation.*
> ** 
> *There was a James Thurber story he used to quote, from "Fables For Our 
> Times"... In it, a bear who was a raging alcoholic finally gives in to 
> his family's entreaties and stops drinking. In fact, he starts 
> exercising and eating health food and is so energized by how good he 
> feels that he begins to proselytize to everyone about the benefits of 
> healthy living... and gets so into his new addiction that he's just as 
> bad off as when he was drinking. The moral of the story was "It is just 
> as bad to fall flat on your face as it is to bend over too far 
> backward." I think science equates a lack of objectivity with falling on 
> its face, but... in its drive for complete objectivity, it's been 
> bending over too far backward. In short; it's not good to become too 
> unbalanced.*
> ** 
> *Judith*