Re: The Quest for Scientific Objectivity, #2

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Judith,

Another thought on this...

Judith Rosen wrote:

snip

> *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.*
snip

This is important - how to be "more" objective, or perhaps
more true in terms of generality, universality, unbiased in
"bad" forms of bias, etc. In addition to your idea to be more
balanced, I would add that we could consider that more
"grounded" could help us know how to be more objective
as in generally true, even across cultural boundaries and
values/reference frames. And to be grounded is to be in
organic, authentic relationship with an environment so as
to be able to continue that frame of reference, that culture,
that life, so that the "truth" or fact in question can continue
to have a meaning context in which to be true - i.e. it is
generally true over time as well as across contexts. If the
value/reference frame or context for a truth claim "dies" or
ceases to exist, then the truth itself would seem to cease to
exist and thus to not have been general or objective in the
first place.

In other words, the most general value or reference frame
from which the most general and objective and long-lasting
truths might spring and be sustained with meaningful
ongoing context, is the value/reference frame of life itself.
So unless we know life's values and bases for meaning, we
can't know what's objective or general truth. let alone what
direction to head to find truths that are "more so".

Dan