|
Howard Pattee wrote: (replying to Dan's post)... 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?
What would you say "Biosemiotics" is?
I would say that it's a way to undo the damage that this drive for
complete scientific objectivity does to our ability to learn about
ourselves and our world.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:40
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The Quest for
Scientific Objectivity
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
|