Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

From: <chales1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:31:07 +1000

In message <yam10073.1541.272357264.domain.name.hidden> Brent Meeker writes:
> On 31-Jul-05, you wrote:
>
> > [-----Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote
> > as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
> ...
> > Our scientific evidentiary process is based on the fallacy of the assumed
> > existence of an 'objective view'. To push the so-called 'objective view'
> > of corroborative science aside and allocate primacy to the subjective is
> > not going to be an easy adjustment. To do that and retain the validity of
> > all science to date (because it works) is ultimately what is required.
> >
> > Reality vs perception of reality? I vote we work really hard on the latter
> > and drop all ascription in relation to the former. A significant dose of
> > humility indeed.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Colin hales
>
>
> Science is not based on a fallacious assumption of objectivity. It is based
> on a model which explains various agreements between our subjective
> experiences by the existence of a "reality" that is independent of us.
> This is not an assumption. Philosophically it is a hypothesis; one that is
> extremly well supported. In fact it is also supported by having been
> hardwired into our brains by evolution; so that it comes to us so
> intuitively that we have to learn philosophy before we can see that it is a
> model.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
>

I said:
> > Our scientific evidentiary process is based on the fallacy of the assumed
> > existence of an 'objective view'.

You said:
> Science is not based on a fallacious assumption of objectivity.

Objectivity and an objective view are not the same thing. The former is a procedural norm relating to the use of the latter objective view. The latter is a construct of appearances. We are not talking about the same thing.

'Evidence' derived from the apparent objective view says NOTHING about the existence or character of the objective view. 5000 different brains could be proposed that provide 5000 different 'objective views' of the same natural phenomenon. Procedural objectivity means all 5000 could result in the same scientific outcome (say some description involving a generalisation X).

Which of the 5000 is the 'real' objective view. All? None?
Now take away phenomenal consciousness completely.
How many views do you have then? NONE.
Can you do science then? NO. No amount of 'objectivity' will make up for it. You wont even be able to perceive another scientist, let alone do anything scientific!

The logical holes in the assumptions we make are fairly loud and obvious.

Colin Hales
Received on Mon Aug 01 2005 - 09:35:30 PDT