[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: The Quest for Scientific Objectivity, #2



At 12:50 PM 1/19/05 -0500, Dan wrote:
Judith Rosen wrote:
*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.


Dan wrote: 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."

Howard asks:


Judith: Can you give a few specific cases of "artificial crap masquerading as knowledge" that science has injected?
Dan: Can you give a few specific "values and bases for meaning"?


I am wondering how both your generalities apply to the current fight over teaching evolution vs. intelligent design. This fight is all about objectivity and the "value/reference frame of life itself."

Howard