Impersonal science

[ukgazzer]

I may be biased but I agree with everything you`ve said Owl (for what it`s worth).There is more to science than maths - That`s a bit radical !

[swansont]

The focus of my post was an illustration of how Einstein's philosophy that there is no 'reality' per se independent of observation differs from "realism" as I use the term, i.e., that "the world" (generally speaking) is "real" independent of what science "places in the drawer."

 

If science were objective, it would not depend on which philosophy scientists endorse. It is subjective in the sense of the above illustrated differences of philosophy.

 

That, not ontology specifically, was my focus.

 

You don't mention philosophy in your OP. You talk of opinion, which is in the title, vs objectivity. You didn't mention Einstein.

 

Anyway, it is going to matter, if one chooses a philosophy which is contrary to the principles on which science is based. Science assumes there is an objective reality which can be measured. This rejects any notion of supernatural effects, that can't be measured. If you assume those to be true, you aren't doing science. Science has a standard of what constitutes evidence, including the notion of falsifiability. If you adopt a different standard you might come to different conclusions, but then again, you aren't doing science. Individual theories have frameworks that tell you what the range of applicability is for those theories.

 

The objectivity comes in the form of everyone being able to access the experiments and the data, and in being able to replicate the science and in having it reviewed by other scientists to see of there is individual bias. If there is an ambiguity in what a result means, you have to devise a new experiment to remove that ambiguity.

[owl]

You don't mention philosophy in your OP. You talk of opinion, which is in the title, vs objectivity. You didn't mention Einstein.[/Quote]

 

If there is a rule that every example or illustration used in the thread (like Einstein's opinion specifically) must be anticipated and mentioned in the OP, please direct me to it.

 

Einstein's *opinion* that there is no "reality" independent of observation has in fact become a very obvious influence in the whole field of relativity, and *opinions* to the contrary are not well tolerated... as exemplified by my contributions here.

If science is still about investigating the "real world" but "real" is a "meaningless category"... then Einstein's opinion has changed the face of science to be less impersonal and more dependent on his opinion about "reality."

 

As I said in the OP, this focus is philosophy of science, not subject to the 'show me the empirical experimental results' demands of other sections of this forum

 

Science assumes there is an objective reality which can be measured.

(my emphasis)

 

How does this square with the Einstein quote above?

 

This rejects any notion of supernatural effects, that can't be measured. If you assume those to be true, you aren't doing science.

 

Who here is advocating "supernatural effects that can't be measured?"

Effects which can not yet be explained or measured by present scientific methods, like telepathy, do not make them untrue or "notions to be rejected."

 

(Btw, "supernatural effects" were not mentioned in the OP, so you are violating the same principle that you attempt to hold me to.)

 

Science has a standard of what constitutes evidence, including the notion of falsifiability. If you adopt a different standard you might come to different conclusions, but then again, you aren't doing science.

 

Where does this leave either theoretical speculation (prior to confirmation/ falsifiability) or the philosophy of science which considers the questions posed in this thread OP? None of that is "doing science?"

 

The objectivity comes in the form of everyone being able to access the experiments and the data, and in being able to replicate the science and in having it reviewed by other scientists to see of there is individual bias. If there is an ambiguity in what a result means, you have to devise a new experiment to remove that ambiguity.

 

See above. I have no argument with the part of science that is empirical and experimental, but that is part of science, not all of science.

[swansont]

If there is a rule that every example or illustration used in the thread (like Einstein's opinion specifically) must be anticipated and mentioned in the OP, please direct me to it.

 

As anyone can read, there is a rule about staying on topic, and there are numerous modnotes directed at you (by those moderating; i.e. not me, here) about not re-introducing topics that have been closed. (Are you admitting to ignoring/flouting those admonishments?)

 

Einstein's *opinion* that there is no "reality" independent of observation has in fact become a very obvious influence in the whole field of relativity, and *opinions* to the contrary are not well tolerated... as exemplified by my contributions here.

If science is still about investigating the "real world" but "real" is a "meaningless category"... then Einstein's opinion has changed the face of science to be less impersonal and more dependent on his opinion about "reality."

…

How does this square with the Einstein quote above?

 

Saying that there is no reality independent of observation is not the same as defining what reality is. This is not a concept limited to relativity; all science assumes what we are measuring is not illusory. But the models built by science do not claim that they represent what is real, they claim to explain the behavior of nature.

 

What does this have to do with objectivity and opinion?

 

Who here is advocating "supernatural effects that can't be measured?"

 

Nobody, AFAIK. Did I claim otherwise?

 

Effects which can not yet be explained or measured by present scientific methods, like telepathy, do not make them untrue or "notions to be rejected."

 

Science doesn't provisionally accept things as true until disproven — the burden of proof is the other way around. So if you advance such things as true on the basis that they haven't been proven false, then you aren't doing science. If you advance them based on anecdotal evidence, you aren't doing science. If you advance them based on crappy statistics (or a misunderstanding of statistics) you might have a case that you are attempting science, but it's crappy science.

 

(Btw, "supernatural effects" were not mentioned in the OP, so you are violating the same principle that you attempt to hold me to.)

 

I thought you claimed to be in the right on this. I can only be guilty if you are.

 

(Except that I didn't start the thread and pull a bait-and-switch on the topic, so no, not really.)

 

Where does this leave either theoretical speculation (prior to confirmation/ falsifiability) or the philosophy of science which considers the questions posed in this thread OP? None of that is "doing science?"

 

See above. I have no argument with the part of science that is empirical and experimental, but that is part of science, not all of science.

 

If you are not constructing some sort of mathematical model, toward something that is testable/falsifiable, then no, your speculation is not something to be called science. But I don't see the connection to opinion here. The whole point of having a model making specific predictions is to remove opinion from the process.

[ecoli]

Einstein's *opinion* that there is no "reality" independent of observation has in fact become a very obvious influence in the whole field of relativity, and *opinions* to the contrary are not well tolerated... as exemplified by my contributions here.

If science is still about investigating the "real world" but "real" is a "meaningless category"... then Einstein's opinion has changed the face of science to be less impersonal and more dependent on his opinion about "reality."

 

This isn't really an Einsteinian innovation, truth be told. The empiricist philosophers have been thinking about this for a while (you might be especially interested in the writings of David Hume).

 

If objective reality doesn't exist independently of our observation of it, then induction is impossible (or so the empiricists feared) - for how can you make inferences if there's no causality (to get causality you need, at least, consistency in some underlying reality).

 

 

As I said in the OP, this focus is philosophy of science, not subject to the 'show me the empirical experimental results' demands of other sections of this forum

sure, but even philosophy can demand empiricism. If there is no objective reality and therefore no causality, why is it that two people can perform the same experiment and obtain the same result? That is an empirical question.

 

Who here is advocating "supernatural effects that can't be measured?"

Effects which can not yet be explained or measured by present scientific methods, like telepathy, do not make them untrue or "notions to be rejected."

You're thinking like an empiricist here. If objective reality doesn't exist, then supernatural and the metaphysical can (because these are effects without causes).

 

There are two possibilities here: the empiricists are correct, the metaphysical can exist, in which case causality assumption is violated. Since science can only make inferences about consistent, underlying things with causal relationships, you cannot make scientific inferences about the metaphysical.

 

OR, the empiricists are wrong, objective reality does exist, everything is ultimately causal and things labeled as metaphysical are simply things that a) science can not yet answer b/c we can't measure it yet b) don't exist at all except in the imagination of crackpots.

 

 

See above. I have no argument with the part of science that is empirical and experimental, but that is part of science, not all of science.

disagree and see my arguments above. Scientific claims are necessarily empirical (which is why you can perform experiments).

[Ringer]

The quote by Einstein is taken a bit out of context:

"The physical world is real." This is supposed to be the basic hypothesis. What does "hypothesis" mean here? For me, hypothesis is a statement whose truth is temporarily assumed, whose meaning however, must be beyond all doubt. The above statement seems to me intrinsically senseless though, like when someone says: "The physical world is a cock-a-doodle-doo." It appears to me that "real" is an empty, meaningless category (drawer) whose immense importance lies only in that I place certain things inside it and not certain others. It is true that this classification is not a random one but ..... now I see you grinning and expecting me to fall into pragmatism so that you can bury me alive. However, I prefer to do as Mark Twain, by suggesting that you end the horror story yourself, as you please.

He goes on to say

I admit that science deals with the "real" and am nonetheless not a "realist."

 

 

So even if he though the concept of reality was arbitrary he accepted that the scientific process must use the concept. Not that his personal opinion mattered because I highly doubt that every scientist that does novel work has the same opinions as those who support their finding or the opposite opinions of those who reject their findings. That is why science thrives, because even if we are extremely biased to find certain results there will be at least, if not more, someone trying to show that we are wrong.

[owl]

The quote by Einstein is taken a bit out of context:[/Quote]

 

Thanks for providing deeper context for the quote.

 

But I really don't understand how he can "admit that science deals with the 'real'" (he is not of the lame opinion that the world is an illusion) and yet declare that he is "nonetheless not a 'realist'." His *opinion* has been a deep and lasting influence on science, and it matters a lot whether "the world" (generally speaking) is objectively, intrinsically "as it is", "really" or whether its "reality" depends on how we look at it (also generally speaking), or what "categories" we deem important enough to "place in the drawer" and call "reality."

 

Regarding the lead-in to what I quoted:

Einstein:

"The physical world is real." This is supposed to be the basic hypothesis. What does "hypothesis" mean here? For me, hypothesis is a statement whose truth is temporarily assumed, whose meaning however, must be beyond all doubt. The above statement seems to me intrinsically senseless though, like when someone says: "The physical world is a cock-a-doodle-doo."

 

Here he seems to doubt the meaning of the "hypothesis"... "The physical world is real." Does science just "temporarily assume" this "basic hypothesis?" How is its meaning not "beyond all doubt." How does substituting a nonsense word for "real" in the statement invalidate it?

 

Isn't "real" the same as "objective" as per the thread topic?

Without subjective (opinionated) dismissal of the 'reality quotient' (again, if you will) of "the world"... it remains as it is, objectively independent of how we observe it... No?

You:

So even if he though the concept of reality was arbitrary he accepted that the scientific process must use the concept. Not that his personal opinion mattered

 

I think his opinion mattered a lot and set a new standard for what is "real" in relationships between objects, like distances between them and their properties, no longer intrinsic but dependent on how they are observed.

 

This isn't really an Einsteinian innovation, truth be told. The empiricist philosophers have been thinking about this for a while (you might be especially interested in the writings of David Hume). [/Quote]

 

I've studied Hume. He and Berkeley were the best known classical idealists, endorsing the philosophy that there is no objective, "real world" but only subjective perception.

If objective reality doesn't exist independently of our observation of it, then induction is impossible (or so the empiricists feared) - for how can you make inferences if there's no causality (to get causality you need, at least, consistency in some underlying reality).

 

Agreed. Impersonal science would be dedicated to investigating "objective reality" without projecting subjective biases into the mix.

 

Me:

Effects which can not yet be explained or measured by present scientific methods, like telepathy, do not make them untrue or "notions to be rejected."

You:

You're thinking like an empiricist here. If objective reality doesn't exist, then supernatural and the metaphysical can (because these are effects without causes).

You're thinking like an empiricist here. If objective reality doesn't exist, then supernatural and the metaphysical can (because these are effects without causes).[/Quote]

 

I think that this confuses the issue. Of course "objective reality" exists. Science's job is to investigate that reality as objectively as possible, with as little subjective bias as possible. "Supernatural" is not a useful term, but nature has "dimensions" (in the broadest sense) beyond present scientific methods and technology. The fact that science doesn't know how telepathy works (or even if it occurs for sure, by strict and rigorous standards) does not make it an "effect without a cause."

There are two possibilities here: the empiricists are correct, the metaphysical can exist, in which case causality assumption is violated. Since science can only make inferences about consistent, underlying things with causal relationships, you cannot make scientific inferences about the metaphysical.[/Quote]

 

"Metaphysical" means literally, beyond physical. Nothing about that "violates causality." The causes may just be off the scale and beyond the pale and realm of present scientific detection and study.

 

You said as much in closing (tho not clear what makes empiricists wrong here):

 

OR, the empiricists are wrong, objective reality does exist, everything is ultimately causal and things labeled as metaphysical are simply things that a) science can not yet answer b/c we can't measure it yet b) don't exist at all except in the imagination of crackpots.[/Quote]

[ecoli]

I think that this confuses the issue. Of course "objective reality" exists. Science's job is to investigate that reality as objectively as possible, with as little subjective bias as possible. "Supernatural" is not a useful term, but nature has "dimensions" (in the broadest sense) beyond present scientific methods and technology. The fact that science doesn't know how telepathy works (or even if it occurs for sure, by strict and rigorous standards) does not make it an "effect without a cause."

 

but I said there are two options: either the "supernatural" are effects without causes, in which science can say nothing about them and inference and prediction is impossible. Or that the supernatural has causes, but science is only limited by technology or whatever that would allow us to observe those causes.

 

Of course there's a third option that most observations of the allegedly supernatural are made by liars, self-delusion or mass hysteria. In which case default to option 2.

 

"Metaphysical" means literally, beyond physical. Nothing about that "violates causality." The causes may just be off the scale and beyond the pale and realm of present scientific detection and study.

Which is essentially what I said above. But how could something that is "beyond physical" have a cause? How could you show that it has a cause?

 

You said as much in closing (tho not clear what makes empiricists wrong here):

 

The empiricists are wrong because science works. We can model causality using science and make predictions. When the predictions are wrong, it means our models are wrong not that causality doesn't exist.

[Ringer]

Thanks for providing deeper context for the quote.

 

But I really don't understand how he can "admit that science deals with the 'real'" (he is not of the lame opinion that the world is an illusion) and yet declare that he is "nonetheless not a 'realist'." His *opinion* has been a deep and lasting influence on science, and it matters a lot whether "the world" (generally speaking) is objectively, intrinsically "as it is", "really" or whether its "reality" depends on how we look at it (also generally speaking), or what "categories" we deem important enough to "place in the drawer" and call "reality."

Here is a link to what he may have meant: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#ReaSep

 

 

Here he seems to doubt the meaning of the "hypothesis"... "The physical world is real." Does science just "temporarily assume" this "basic hypothesis?" How is its meaning not "beyond all doubt." How does substituting a nonsense word for "real" in the statement invalidate it?

 

He wasn't trying to invalidate the statement, he is trying to make the point that saying something is real is close to meaningless because real is such an ill defined concept. He is not doubting the meaning of hypothesis, but the meaning of the word real.

 

Isn't "real" the same as "objective" as per the thread topic?

Without subjective (opinionated) dismissal of the 'reality quotient' (again, if you will) of "the world"... it remains as it is, objectively independent of how we observe it... No?

 

I don't believe so, something can be real and subjective as well. As I understood the OP we were discussing how individual biases impair objectivity in science. Say we were in a room together at with a constant set temperature. I say it is cold while you say it is just right. Though we are both experiencing a real thing, the temp, though our measurement of it is subjective. Now under the same conditions we measure the temperature and you say it is 19.25 Celsius and I say it is 19.23 Celsius. Now the measurements are mostly objective, but I may use a slightly lower point if the reading is jumping due to my bias of feeling cold. So we both keep measuring and get consistent results of the same range, mine is usually slightly lower but easily within accepted error. Then we leave and more people enter (people's presence doesn't affect temperature) and start getting measurements. These agree with our prior results though are very slightly higher, this happens multiple times. Though my subjective experience of the temperature being too cold may have biased the initial results replication should start weeding out these subjective biases.

 

That may have went on too long. . . Anyway

 

I'm unsure of what you mean by reality quotient. I went through the previous posts and tried to look it up and couldn't really find a good definition. I agree that nature works independently of our observations of it.

 

I think his opinion mattered a lot and set a new standard for what is "real" in relationships between objects, like distances between them and their properties, no longer intrinsic but dependent on how they are observed.

 

We may be starting to get a bit too close on specific subject but;

 

His opinion may have helped him develop his ideas, but they did not cause other people to get data that supports the ideas. Part of objectivity in science is knowing that how nature works may seem completely ludicrous, but that is what is subjective. One of the main points of repeated experimental observations by multiple sources is to remove subjective biases. These things aren't taken at face value and accepted, people with different ideas try to disprove each other constantly as well as change currently accepted ideas.

 

 

[owl]

Note: Let's keep on track. This thread is not about differences of opinion about the validity of paranormal phenomena per se. That field is, however, one example of how those differences effect the scientific study of it. With that in mind....

 

but I said there are two options: either the "supernatural" are effects without causes, in which science can say nothing about them and inference and prediction is impossible. Or that the supernatural has causes, but science is only limited by technology or whatever that would allow us to observe those causes.

 

Of course there's a third option that most observations of the allegedly supernatural are made by liars, self-delusion or mass hysteria. In which case default to option 2.[/Quote]

 

"Effects without causes" is, to me, a nonsense phrase/concept.

The "Or"... part of the first paragraph seems to apply, though I object to the word "supernatural" as having no place in science. I prefer "paranormal," which is still a legitimate field of scientific study, however controversial.

 

The third option is the legitimate opinion of many skeptical, hard core materialist scientists. That would require that I am a liar, as I have, on several occasions, directly experienced telepathy, and we hashed out the "believe it or not" issue in my thread on "Consciousness" in the Speculations section. I suggest that any further conversation on this subject take place there.

 

Which is essentially what I said above. But how could something that is "beyond physical" have a cause? How could you show that it has a cause?

 

Those who scientifically investigate paranormal stuff like telepathy hypothesize that there is a dimension of energy "beyond" the known electromagnetic spectrum, and that human consciousness can, under special circumstances, "transmit and receive" in this more subtle dimension, analogous to but more subtle than radio wave transmission.

That should be enough about that here. The point is that the existence of such phenomena (or not) does not, thankfully, depend on the opinions of the most hard core skeptics, so science continues to study "the paranormal." To dismiss it all saying "not enough evidence" is quite premature... and example of "closed minded science"... which is not science.

 

The empiricists are wrong because science works. We can model causality using science and make predictions. When the predictions are wrong, it means our models are wrong not that causality doesn't exist.

 

I think you are using "empiricism" in an unusual way, which confused me.

Wiki on empiricism:

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions.[1]

 

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments.

 

Here is a link to what he may have meant: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#ReaSep[/Quote]

 

Good link on “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science." Thanks.

Hopefully his philosophy as a scientist will pass as relevant to the topic, an example of how personal opinion influences science., a least as an assumed context of meaning for the physics and math... as science describing a "real world" whatever "real" means to each scientist.

 

Einstein:

I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality.

 

Good news. Me too. But realism, as I understand it, asserts that physical reality remains *as it objectively is* regardless of how we attempt to "hold on to" it.

 

Don Howard (author of the cited encyclopedia paper):

Realism is thus the thesis of spatial separability, the claim that spatial separation is a sufficient condition for the individuation of physical systems, and its assumption is here made into almost a necessary condition for the possibility of an intelligible science of physics.

 

Clearly "realism" has different meaning for different philosophers of science. For some (myself included) cosmos is physically real *as a whole* as well as in all of its "spatially separate" parts.

Me:

Here he seems to doubt the meaning of the "hypothesis"... "The physical world is real." Does science just "temporarily assume" this "basic hypothesis?" How is its meaning not "beyond all doubt." How does substituting a nonsense word for "real" in the statement invalidate it?

You:

He wasn't trying to invalidate the statement, he is trying to make the point that saying something is real is close to meaningless because real is such an ill defined concept. He is not doubting the meaning of hypothesis, but the meaning of the word real.

 

"Physical reality" means to me simply that the world exists as it is, objectively, regardless of what we think or theorize about it or how we measure it.

 

You:

I don't believe so, something can be real and subjective as well. As I understood the OP we were discussing how individual biases impair objectivity in science.

... ... ...

"That may have went on too long. . . Anyway"

 

Maybe. But I am not disputing that subjective differences are "real" in the subjective sense of real personal differences. But the focus here was on the "reality" of the physical world. The thermostat in the room reads out the temperature, a physical reality in the room. How folks feel about it, different comfort levels are subjectively real but not the physical reality in question.

 

I'm unsure of what you mean by reality quotient. I went through the previous posts and tried to look it up and couldn't really find a good definition. I agree that nature works independently of our observations of it.

 

I had it in half quotes and an ("if you will") after it as a reference to just *how real* is physical reality... its 'reality quotient'... just a little license with phrasing. Not depending on how it is observed makes it absolutely real, one of the options.

 

We may be starting to get a bit too close on specific subject but;

...

 

Yes, I'm very aware of the warning and doing my best to keep it on topic yet use examples of how the subjective realm influences scientific objectivity, as with Einstein's most basic questioning of what is "real" above.

[swansont]

The third option is the legitimate opinion of many skeptical, hard core materialist scientists. That would require that I am a liar, as I have, on several occasions, directly experienced telepathy, and we hashed out the "believe it or not" issue in my thread on "Consciousness" in the Speculations section. I suggest that any further conversation on this subject take place there.

 

 

 

Those who scientifically investigate paranormal stuff like telepathy hypothesize that there is a dimension of energy "beyond" the known electromagnetic spectrum, and that human consciousness can, under special circumstances, "transmit and receive" in this more subtle dimension, analogous to but more subtle than radio wave transmission.

That should be enough about that here. The point is that the existence of such phenomena (or not) does not, thankfully, depend on the opinions of the most hard core skeptics, so science continues to study "the paranormal." To dismiss it all saying "not enough evidence" is quite premature... and example of "closed minded science"... which is not science.

 

This is just an example of rejecting what science considers evidence. You have anecdotal evidence that is not rigorously obtained, meaning that it is susceptible to confirmation bias. You also have a conjecture of some new type of energy/interaction, for which there is no independent evidence or even (AFAIK) a model, even though it is ultimately an interaction with plain old matter. In addition is the problem of all of the rigorous tests that show a null result.

 

These are examples of how trying to impress your own version of science, or philosophy, can subvert the process. Confirmation bias is not objective. Unsupported conjecture is not objective. Cherry picking results is not objective.

[owl]

... You also have a conjecture of some new type of energy/interaction, for which there is no independent evidence or even (AFAIK) a model, even though it is ultimately an interaction with plain old matter....

 

These are examples of how trying to impress your own version of science, or philosophy, can subvert the process. Confirmation bias is not objective. Unsupported conjecture is not objective. Cherry picking results is not objective.

 

This is the speculation section. This was a speculation:

 

Those who scientifically investigate paranormal stuff like telepathy hypothesize that there is a dimension of energy "beyond" the known electromagnetic spectrum, and that human consciousness can, under special circumstances, "transmit and receive" in this more subtle dimension, analogous to but more subtle than radio wave transmission.

We have already had the argument you are rehashing above. I see no reason to do it all again.

If you have any new criticisms to add, again, as I said,

 

“I suggest that any further conversation on this subject take place there."... in my “consciousness” thread, also in speculations. There you can review my references to David Bohm's speculative work in the field regarding your first criticism above.

 

I have already admitted that my direct experience of telepathy, shared in detail in that thread, is anecdotal. Yet that personal experience is how I personally know that telepathy exists.

 

Again, if you have any further reply, please do it in that thread. It was not my intent to "bait-and-switch" to rehash that subject here. You are the one who brought up "the supernatural" in this thread. But maybe you were just "baiting" me to get into it again and get this thread closed and me banned. Maybe not, but enough here on that in any case.

Edited April 29, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

Good link on "Einstein's Philosophy of Science." Thanks.

Hopefully his philosophy as a scientist will pass as relevant to the topic, an example of how personal opinion influences science., a least as an assumed context of meaning for the physics and math... as science describing a "real world" whatever "real" means to each scientist.

 

 

Einstein:

 

 

Good news. Me too. But realism, as I understand it, asserts that physical reality remains *as it objectively is* regardless of how we attempt to "hold on to" it.

 

I don't think different perspectives on what 'real' may mean has a big influence on the scientific merit of their discoveries. Not to say it wouldn't influence their thought process, but that is way these things must be verified experimentally, so individual bias can be minimized. His concept of real may have helped him conceptualize his ideas, but they didn't necessarily influence those those attempting to verify his ideas.

 

Don Howard (author of the cited encyclopedia paper):

 

 

Clearly "realism" has different meaning for different philosophers of science. For some (myself included) cosmos is physically real *as a whole* as well as in all of its "spatially separate" parts.

 

Indeed, but I don't think I can handle a philosophical discussion in semantics right now (it's finals week and my brain is pretty jumbled at the moment).

 

You:

... ... ...

"That may have went on too long. . . Anyway"

 

Maybe. But I am not disputing that subjective differences are "real" in the subjective sense of real personal differences. But the focus here was on the "reality" of the physical world. The thermostat in the room reads out the temperature, a physical reality in the room. How folks feel about it, different comfort levels are subjectively real but not the physical reality in question.

 

Yes, but my point was that even if my measurement was biased towards being low the replications should minimize the effect of my bias. That is why replication is so necessary to science, if only one experiment was done for any given hypothesis there wouldn't be any way to tell if the experiments were actually valid.

 

 

I had it in half quotes and an ("if you will") after it as a reference to just *how real* is physical reality... its 'reality quotient'... just a little license with phrasing. Not depending on how it is observed makes it absolutely real, one of the options.

 

...

 

Yes, I'm very aware of the warning and doing my best to keep it on topic yet use examples of how the subjective realm influences scientific objectivity, as with Einstein's most basic questioning of what is "real" above.

 

Again, since theories such as these, ones that virtually change the game, are tested continuously the room for bias is fairly small. It's not the individual who removes subjectivity, but the theory being blasted by others to try to verify it or disprove it.

[swansont]

This is the speculation section. This was a speculation:

 

I thought this was a discussion of objectivity vs opinion. Regardless, one can easily look at the rules of the speculation section and see that some of the rigor of science still applies. Which is what I tried to point out — you apply the rigor of science. You don't get to discard that and call what you're doing science.

 

We have already had the argument you are rehashing above. I see no reason to do it all again.

If you have any new criticisms to add, again, as I said,

 

I had no intent of rehashing the argument. I merely pointed out that these are examples of what I had mentioned earlier. The protocols of science are objective. The examples you gave are not.

 

“I suggest that any further conversation on this subject take place there."... in my “consciousness” thread, also in speculations. There you can review my references to David Bohm's speculative work in the field regarding your first criticism above.

 

I have already admitted that my direct experience of telepathy, shared in detail in that thread, is anecdotal. Yet that personal experience is how I personally know that telepathy exists.

 

Personal knowledge of this sort is subjective, not objective. It is conviction of this sort — where data do not convince you because you "know" the "truth", owing to some personal, anecdotal experience — where you leave the realm of science. Science is objective, even if people fail to be.

 

Again, if you have any further reply, please do it in that thread. It was not my intent to "bait-and-switch" to rehash that subject here. You are the one who brought up "the supernatural" in this thread. But maybe you were just "baiting" me to get into it again and get this thread closed and me banned. Maybe not, but enough here on that in any case.

 

Not for nothing, but it's amusing to be accused of wielding tremendous power in some circumstances, and then to be accused of trying to engineer a result such as you describe here.

 

It's also amusing that I have, on several occasions, tried really hard to steer the discussion back to the original topic, and to speak in generalities rather than the details, and you are trying to paint me as the heavy in all this. I'm not leading you anywhere. e.g. I mentioned the supernatural — a general descriptive term — but did not mention telepathy. You brought that up.

[owl]

 

I had no intent of rehashing the argument. I merely pointed out that these are examples of what I had mentioned earlier. The protocols of science are objective. The examples you gave are not.

...

Personal knowledge of this sort is subjective, not objective. It is conviction of this sort — where data do not convince you because you "know" the "truth", owing to some personal, anecdotal experience — where you leave the realm of science. Science is objective, even if people fail to be. [/Quote]

 

How do we know what we know (science) and how much of that is subjective vs objective knowing?... the essence of this thread.

 

The reason that such anecdotes are not usually considered "scientific" is because they usually are experienced "in the field" and not replicable in the lab. And of course, many anecdotes are false claims by liars, as I said above, so verification of all "stories" must be an essential part of "good science."

 

But excluding all anecdotes as scientific evidence is an anti-scientific bias itself, a too narrow definition of objective science and what constitutes "evidence." If "objective" refers to empirical evidence based on sensed data, not subjective opinion, then this broader definition would include such experiences as mine above.

 

For example: I experienced, at a distance from my son, pain in my stomach and a mental image of him in distress simultaneously. The mechanism, how I "sensed" this remains a mystery, yet it was sensed data. The evidence that it was true (accurate knowledge as required by the epistemology of science)) was the verification, when I got home, that he was in fact in distress with severe stomach pain.

 

I think that throwing out such evidence as merely anecdotal defines science too narrowly. The evidence did in fact confirm the sensed data, IOW, what I sensed was objectively verified, not just a subjective experience with no confirmation.

Edited May 1, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

How do we know what we know (science) and how much of that is subjective vs objective knowing?... the essence of this thread.

 

The reason that such anecdotes are not usually considered "scientific" is because they usually are experienced "in the field" and not replicable in the lab. And of course, many anecdotes are false claims by liars, as I said above, so verification of all "stories" must be an essential part of "good science."

 

Many legitimate observations take place "in the field". The reason that anecdotes are rejected are because/when they are not obtained rigorously — e.g. you log positive responses but not negative one. Another is when they are personal experiences that cannot be objectively (re)viewed by another.

 

But excluding all anecdotes as scientific evidence is an anti-scientific bias itself, a too narrow definition of objective science and what constitutes "evidence." If "objective" refers to empirical evidence based on sensed data, not subjective opinion, then this broader definition would include such experiences as mine above.

 

The rigor is there in an attempt to distinguish between a true vision and bad pizza. Your sensed data would be acceptable if you had kept a log of every thought that might qualify as telepathy, so everyone could see the correlations between them and see if the events happened more often than one would expect from random chance. i.e. rigor is there to exclude acausal coincidence, i.e. simple correlation. Correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition for the existence of a real phenomenon. Lowering the bar to correlation would allow silly statements like "Driving a Lexus is why people vote Republican" or "carrying umbrellas leads to rain". There's a correlation, but one does not cause the other. Or the ubiquitous "washing your car leads to rain", which is even more apropos, because it's an example of remembering the hits and forgetting the misses — the correlation is only present because you omit data.

[Ringer]

How do we know what we know (science) and how much of that is subjective vs objective knowing?... the essence of this thread.

 

The reason that such anecdotes are not usually considered "scientific" is because they usually are experienced "in the field" and not replicable in the lab. And of course, many anecdotes are false claims by liars, as I said above, so verification of all "stories" must be an essential part of "good science."

 

But excluding all anecdotes as scientific evidence is an anti-scientific bias itself, a too narrow definition of objective science and what constitutes "evidence." If "objective" refers to empirical evidence based on sensed data, not subjective opinion, then this broader definition would include such experiences as mine above.

 

For example: I experienced, at a distance from my son, pain in my stomach and a mental image of him in distress simultaneously. The mechanism, how I "sensed" this remains a mystery, yet it was sensed data. The evidence that it was true (accurate knowledge as required by the epistemology of science)) was the verification, when I got home, that he was in fact in distress with severe stomach pain.

 

I think that throwing out such evidence as merely anecdotal defines science too narrowly. The evidence did in fact confirm the sensed data, IOW, what I sensed was objectively verified, not just a subjective experience with no confirmation.

 

As we have discussed in previous threads, anecdotes are completely subjective. With that in mind I, personally, cannot at all see how you can hold that science is needs to be more objective while pushing that anecdotes should not be discarded.

[owl]

As we have discussed in previous threads, anecdotes are completely subjective. With that in mind I, personally, cannot at all see how you can hold that science is needs to be more objective while pushing that anecdotes should not be discarded.

I think the above is an example of personal opinion, albeit ubiquitous among physicists, not impersonal science.

Do you think that the methods of anthropology in studying "paranormal" practitioners in the field are unscientific? Do you believe that physics is the only legitimate science?

 

My story, if fabricated in isolation, would be "completely subjective." But my sensed experience was specifically verified by both my son and my wife.

 

Science is open to evidence. The above was verified evidence of very specific communication at a distance via no known means.

As I said before, the truth of the matter does not depend on whether or not you believe the story. Science must sort out the truth from the lies in such cases* and specify the subjective parts from the objective verification.

My stomach pain was subjective, quasi-psychosomatic and empathetic, while his was the result of a physical ulcer.

* Field studies have good methods for doing that, too specific for detailing here.

 

Many legitimate observations take place "in the field". The reason that anecdotes are rejected are because/when they are not obtained rigorously — e.g. you log positive responses but not negative one. Another is when they are personal experiences that cannot be objectively (re)viewed by another.

A scientist in the field studying the behavior of the pissant will take notes on that subject, not on a swarm of fruitflies nearby, and not on every observation he makes in general and at random as he hikes around.

 

The same applies to field notes on paranormal phenomena. At the time, I kept a journal on each, very rare such occurrence, duly noted after the crisis was over.

 

The doctor's report on my son's condition was very objective, and I reported my reason for coming home (also stomach pain) to my wife immediately, so she was witness to both "pains."

[Ringer]

I think the above is an example of personal opinion, albeit ubiquitous among physicists, not impersonal science.

Do you think that the methods of anthropology in studying "paranormal" practitioners in the field are unscientific? Do you believe that physics is the only legitimate science?

 

It's not an opinion, personal experience is, by its very definition, subjective.

 

Sometimes the methods they use are unscientific and sometimes they are not, it depends on how they go about it. If they take mythology and stories of magic from another culture at face value than they are being unscientific.

 

Why would I think physics is the only legitimate science when I don't even study physics? Don't move the goal posts.

 

My story, if fabricated in isolation, would be "completely subjective." But my sensed experience was specifically verified by both my son and my wife.

 

Yeah, we talked about this in another thread, if you want to go back into all that we can do it there.

 

Science is open to evidence. The above was verified evidence of very specific communication at a distance via no known means.

As I said before, the truth of the matter does not depend on whether or not you believe the story. Science must sort out the truth from the lies in such cases* and specify the subjective parts from the objective verification.

My stomach pain was subjective, quasi-psychosomatic and empathetic, while his was the result of a physical ulcer.

* Field studies have good methods for doing that, too specific for detailing here.

 

Yes and it does this by replication, as I've stated before, that is one of the major ways science retains objectivity.

 

A scientist in the field studying the behavior of the pissant will take notes on that subject, not on a swarm of fruitflies nearby, and not on every observation he makes in general and at random as he hikes around.

 

The same applies to field notes on paranormal phenomena. At the time, I kept a journal on each, very rare such occurrence, duly noted after the crisis was over.

 

The doctor's report on my son's condition was very objective, and I reported my reason for coming home (also stomach pain) to my wife immediately, so she was witness to both "pains."

 

Someone in the field makes an observation of anything relevant to what he is studying. If the swarm of fruitflies interacts with the pissant it will be recorded. For the paranormal 'feeling' every time you get a stomach cramp, or any 'bad feeling', you would have to record it and measure the positive results with the negative results. Other wise it would be cherry-picking.

 

 

 

[owl]

I moved the conversation on the above telepathy anecdote to my "Consciousness" thread where it belongs.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64070-consciousness-the-missing-unified-theory-factor/page__st__160

Edited May 4, 2012 by owl