Re: The Quest for Scientific Objectivity

[Howard Pattee <***>]

At 12:25 PM 1/19/05 -0500, Dan wrote:
> 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.

HP: Of course it is obvious that science's objectivity is irrelevant for 
most people. Most people still think the sun rises and sets, and that 
Copernicus and Galileo had a pushy agenda. Quantum theory and relativity 
are completely off their charts along with Rosen's impredicativities. But 
by what logic or value system do you conclude that these models are just as 
"authentic, real and valid" as the more objective science models?

From your statement I would have to conclude that a chipmunk's world is 
just as real and authentic. Do you not distinguish degrees of objectivity 
and authenticity in a model? Is the ideal of seeking objective truth of no 
value to you?

Howard