If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

But if observation is subjective because you are interpreting, then interpreting must be.

"Human to human" is an example of drawing limits. You can't simply choose to demarcate a set of observational forms and say "Okay, we're being objective within these criteria."

Being a human inherently has a limit set, and that limit is only known to non-humans. If we are unable to know or do not know our innate bias, are we subjective?

But you ignored the analogy which I think demonstrates a difference between observing and interpretation.

 

[Dak]

Well, any purported objectivity is oppression, right? Because it's never actually objective - it's just where the privileged perspective chooses to mark its limits.

Science is more inter-subjective tbh. Anyone can devise an experiment and test a hypothesis. But there are a couple of criteria: proof and reproducibility. "I prayed for a lightning strike and it happened" so far has yet to meet them.

 

[Einherjar86]

But if observation is subjective because you are interpreting, then interpreting must be.

Must be what?

I merely said that we cannot observe something without also simultaneously interpreting it. I never said, or insinuated, that you can interpret something without observing it.

Being a human inherently has a limit set, and that limit is only known to non-humans. If we are unable to know or do not know our innate bias, are we subjective?

This question is confusing, but there's no such thing as objectivity within a set of observational limits that precludes the external. There's no "human objectivity," since what designates the category of "human" can only be presupposed from within, never verified from without - and that is emphatically not an objective set of criteria. So we can only ever be subjective, from our respective, individual viewpoints.

This leads to my next point:

But you ignored the analogy which I think demonstrates a difference between observing and interpretation.

To be able to say "humans have thumbs" necessitates making a categorical claim about the entity in question - in this case, a human. When you say "humans have thumbs," you've already made an interpretive claim that the thing you're talking that has thumbs is, in fact, a human.

Now, you might say that this is one of the biological or physiological criteria for calling something a human: that it has opposable thumbs. But if this is the case, then you must see that you've also made an interpretive claim in order to qualify the thing you're talking about as "human."

In other words, to be able to say "Humans have thumbs," you have to have done one of the following:

Say "This thing has opposable thumbs. It must be a human!" (an interpretive observation)

or,

Say "This thing is a human. It must have opposable thumbs!" (an interpretive observation)

(of course, I'm simplifying here - other animals do have appendages like opposable thumbs)

Now, let's suggest one final possibility: get rid of "the human" altogether, and make the following observation: "This is a thumb."

Ignoring the "this," let's assume you're making a very basic observation that some object before you is a thumb (it doesn't even have to be opposable). In order to make this claim, you're drawing on a history of knowledge preceding that allows you to say "This is a thumb." You're making an interpretation, albeit a very fast one, that the shape/figure/form/etc. that you're observing is, in fact, a thumb. Interpretation is built into this observation, whether you realize it or not.

A more accurate conception of science is, as Dak suggests, that it's "inter-subjective." It consists of competing perspectives that are constantly being tested and occasionally reproduced. Anything that claims "objectivity" is, in my book, trying to pull the veil over your eyes

 

[EternalMetal]

I merely said that we cannot observe something without also simultaneously interpreting it. I never said, or insinuated, that you can interpret something without observing it.

This kind of thinking probably applies to anything visual, but science isnt merely literal observation and interpretation. What about data obtained from an instrument? I assert that it is possible to observe this data (especially if it is complicated data) before interpreting it because it is inherently dissociated from our biological sense organs. What im trying to say is that science isnt all initially limited to the subjectivity of our senses, even if most of it's interpretation inherently is.

This question is confusing, but there's no such thing as objectivity within a set of observational limits that precludes the external. There's no "human objectivity," since what designates the category of "human" can only be presupposed from within, never verified from without - and that is emphatically not an objective set of criteria. So we can only ever be subjective, from our respective, individual viewpoints.

This leads to my next point:



To be able to say "humans have thumbs" necessitates making a categorical claim about the entity in question - in this case, a human. When you say "humans have thumbs," you've already made an interpretive claim that the thing you're talking that has thumbs is, in fact, a human.

Now, you might say that this is one of the biological or physiological criteria for calling something a human: that it has opposable thumbs. But if this is the case, then you must see that you've also made an interpretive claim in order to qualify the thing you're talking about as "human."

In other words, to be able to say "Humans have thumbs," you have to have done one of the following:

Say "This thing has opposable thumbs. It must be a human!" (an interpretive observation)

or,

Say "This thing is a human. It must have opposable thumbs!" (an interpretive observation)

(of course, I'm simplifying here - other animals do have appendages like opposable thumbs)

Now, let's suggest one final possibility: get rid of "the human" altogether, and make the following observation: "This is a thumb."

Ignoring the "this," let's assume you're making a very basic observation that some object before you is a thumb (it doesn't even have to be opposable). In order to make this claim, you're drawing on a history of knowledge preceding that allows you to say "This is a thumb." You're making an interpretation, albeit a very fast one, that the shape/figure/form/etc. that you're observing is, in fact, a thumb. Interpretation is built into this observation, whether you realize it or not.

A more accurate conception of science is, as Dak suggests, that it's "inter-subjective." It consists of competing perspectives that are constantly being tested and occasionally reproduced. Anything that claims "objectivity" is, in my book, trying to pull the veil over your eyes

I think that history has proven science to be subject to social pressure and inherent human bias, but ultimately the goal of science is to be as objective as possible in its methodology. It is a platform where you boldly make assertions about tenuous data and attempt to support these assertions (hypothesis) with empirical experimentation. It is also only objective in the sense that the experimenter attempts to disprove his hypothesis with an equal amount of rigor as he is trying to prove it.

Science never entirely reaches the point of absolute truth. When science states something as 'fact', it is only because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it, and nothing that currently suggests the contrary. I think you guys are looking at science from the perspective that it asserts itself as the end-game of Truth, but this isnt the case. It is more of an interpretive estimation of truth bound by the limitations of its methods. While I would agree that it is inter-subjective, the world that has built up around us is substantial enough evidence to suggest that science isnt just comprised of the mere deception of it's constituents. It may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny as an Objective ideology, but its observable progress suggests that it does trend towards objectivity.

 

[Dak]

I know Ein would say that instruments are subjective.

 

[Baroque]

This kind of thinking probably applies to anything visual, but science isnt merely literal observation and interpretation. What about data obtained from an instrument? I assert that it is possible to observe this data (especially if it is complicated data) before interpreting it because it is inherently dissociated from our biological sense organs. What im trying to say is that science isnt all initially limited to the subjectivity of our senses, even if most of it's interpretation inherently is.



I think that history has proven science to be subject to social pressure and inherent human bias, but ultimately the goal of science is to be as objective as possible in its methodology. It is a platform where you boldly make assertions about tenuous data and attempt to support these assertions (hypothesis) with empirical experimentation. It is also only objective in the sense that the experimenter attempts to disprove his hypothesis with an equal amount of rigor as he is trying to prove it.

Science never entirely reaches the point of absolute truth. When science states something as 'fact', it is only because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it, and nothing that currently suggests the contrary. I think you guys are looking at science from the perspective that it asserts itself as the end-game of Truth, but this isnt the case. It is more of an interpretive estimation of truth bound by the limitations of its methods. While I would agree that it is inter-subjective, the world that has built up around us is substantial enough evidence to suggest that science isnt just comprised of the mere deception of it's constituents. It may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny as an Objective ideology, but its observable progress suggests that it does trend towards objectivity.

I agree with most of this, but aside from philosophically speaking, science can reach a point of absolute truth. For example: hypothesis - there is frozen water on mars, then we go to mars and find frozen water. At that point it has reached absolute truth, unless you get all philosophical. You're right as far as statistics are concerned on more complicated matters however.

 

[Einherjar86]

This kind of thinking probably applies to anything visual, but science isnt merely literal observation and interpretation. What about data obtained from an instrument? I assert that it is possible to observe this data (especially if it is complicated data) before interpreting it because it is inherently dissociated from our biological sense organs. What im trying to say is that science isnt all initially limited to the subjectivity of our senses, even if most of it's interpretation inherently is.

I think that history has proven science to be subject to social pressure and inherent human bias, but ultimately the goal of science is to be as objective as possible in its methodology. It is a platform where you boldly make assertions about tenuous data and attempt to support these assertions (hypothesis) with empirical experimentation. It is also only objective in the sense that the experimenter attempts to disprove his hypothesis with an equal amount of rigor as he is trying to prove it.

Science never entirely reaches the point of absolute truth. When science states something as 'fact', it is only because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it, and nothing that currently suggests the contrary. I think you guys are looking at science from the perspective that it asserts itself as the end-game of Truth, but this isnt the case. It is more of an interpretive estimation of truth bound by the limitations of its methods. While I would agree that it is inter-subjective, the world that has built up around us is substantial enough evidence to suggest that science isnt just comprised of the mere deception of it's constituents. It may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny as an Objective ideology, but its observable progress suggests that it does trend towards objectivity.

I know Ein would say that instruments are subjective.

Without going too much into this, yeah - our instruments carry their own kind of bias.

There have been studies on the history of the senses and their relationship to the development of various instrumentation. Two good ones are Michel Serres's The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies and Michael Taussig's Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. Ultimately, even the instrument that measures the most extra-sensory information is acting as an interface for our form of sensory perception.

I agree with most of this, but aside from philosophically speaking, science can reach a point of absolute truth. For example: hypothesis - there is frozen water on mars, then we go to mars and find frozen water. At that point it has reached absolute truth, unless you get all philosophical. You're right as far as statistics are concerned on more complicated matters however.

Well, you've kind of foreclosed any discussion by saying we can't consider the philosophical parameters of truth claims. Ultimately, any claim that purports to be "absolute truth" necessitates some kind of theoretical/philosophical qualification.

I would venture that discovering ice on Mars doesn't mean the claim that there is ice on Mars achieves the status of "absolute truth." Instead, we should say that the claim is empirically verifiable, or falsifiable. I would have to insist that it isn't an absolute truth because it is not a necessary metaphysical condition of the universe - i.e. it isn't necessary that there be ice on Mars, there may not be ice on Mars in a billion years, and at some point in time Mars didn't even exist. Current states aren't absolute truths.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ultimately, even the instrument that measures the most extra-sensory information is acting as an interface for our form of sensory perception.

The interface it provides (if it's a good instrument) does not change according to its inputs. If I'm measuring two different substances according to some humanly imperceptible property of conductivity for example, the instrument will feed me data through visual sensory output (probably text on a screen), but as long as the operator's eyesight and comprehension of Arabic numerals are solid, I don't see where human sensory bias comes in. The visual output only exists to give people abstract, non-sensory information (numbers).

 

[Baroque]

Well, you've kind of foreclosed any discussion by saying we can't consider the philosophical parameters of truth claims. Ultimately, any claim that purports to be "absolute truth" necessitates some kind of theoretical/philosophical qualification.

I would venture that discovering ice on Mars doesn't mean the claim that there is ice on Mars achieves the status of "absolute truth." Instead, we should say that the claim is empirically verifiable, or falsifiable. I would have to insist that it isn't an absolute truth because it is not a necessary metaphysical condition of the universe - i.e. it isn't necessary that there be ice on Mars, there may not be ice on Mars in a billion years, and at some point in time Mars didn't even exist. Current states aren't absolute truths.

you can say all that but if we find ice on mars, there is ice on mars. And what you're saying will just be humanities bs until there isn't ice on mars.

 

[Einherjar86]

The interface it provides (if it's a good instrument) does not change according to its inputs. If I'm measuring two different substances according to some humanly imperceptible property of conductivity for example, the instrument will feed me data through visual sensory output (probably text on a screen), but as long as the operator's eyesight and comprehension of Arabic numerals are solid, I don't see where human sensory bias comes in. The visual output only exists to give people abstract, non-sensory information (numbers).

Experiencing material phenomena via numerical expression is itself a conditioned form of receiving information. In this case, I have to disagree with the mathematical Platonists: in other words, the law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers. The bias is in the very construction of the machine/interface.

you can say all that but if we find ice on mars, there is ice on mars. And what you're saying will just be humanities bs until there isn't ice on mars.

If we found ice on Mars, I wouldn't try to deny that there is ice on Mars. I would deny that it's an absolute truth.

 

[Dak]

you can say all that but if we find ice on mars, there is ice on mars. And what you're saying will just be humanities bs until there isn't ice on mars.

Why engage in science? Apparently not for anything that involves humanity. This is a problem I have with a lot of disciplines at this point, both in the hard sciences and in the humanities. I'm anthropocentric as fuck without apology.

 

[Baroque]

If we found ice on Mars, I wouldn't try to deny that there is ice on Mars. I would deny that it's an absolute truth.

Suppose you are on Mars holding a piece of ice in your hand. With ice on ground as well. How is it not an absolute truth at that point? That's your present reality.

Are you claiming that only eternal truths are absolute? Then does an absolute truth even exist? Name something that was true eternally? otherwise you might as well just call the set of absolute truths the empty set, and it's a useless term. This is a semantic waste of time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Let me ask you a question about semantics. How can something be "absolute" if it only exists for you, only for a limited period of time, and only according to a specific set of perceptive criteria? Don't complain about definitions when you're using a loaded term (two loaded terms, in fact) that just begs for qualification.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Experiencing material phenomena via numerical expression is itself a conditioned form of receiving information. In this case, I have to disagree with the mathematical Platonists: in other words, the law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers. The bias is in the very construction of the machine/interface.

The law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers, but that doesn't mean it can't be wholly described by numbers. An instrument will naturally be biased according to human understanding, but the human sensory interface component isn't much of a factor there. The challenge is setting up experimental conditions where previously-established mathematical descriptions of phenomena are used to relate input and output, which certainly can later be proven insufficient/wrong, but the construction of the machine is separate from the collection and interpretation of data.

 

[Einherjar86]

The law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers, but that doesn't mean it can't be wholly described by numbers. An instrument will naturally be biased according to human understanding, but the human sensory interface component isn't much of a factor there. The challenge is setting up experimental conditions where previously-established mathematical descriptions of phenomena are used to relate input and output, which certainly can later be proven insufficient/wrong, but the construction of the machine is separate from the collection and interpretation of data.

I have to disagree here. Even disregarding the corruption of data, numerical representation is far from a whole description of a phenomenon.

I realize that I can go around in circles with people here. I don't disbelieve in the concept of absolute truth, but I reject any perspective - human or instrumental - that purports to convey an absolute truth. I reject that terminology. Ultimately it's more complicated than semantics, but that is a major aspect of it.

 

[Baroque]

waste of time.

Later.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I have to disagree here. Even disregarding the corruption of data, numerical representation is far from a whole description of a phenomenon.

I realize that I can go around in circles with people here. I don't disbelieve in the concept of absolute truth, but I reject any perspective - human or instrumental - that purports to convey an absolute truth. I reject that terminology. Ultimately it's more complicated than semantics, but that is a major aspect of it.

Whole description within a given framework. E.g., someone builds a mass spectrometer to ionize particles, which can have charge values varying according to integer values, and can be reliably accelerated to varying positions on a screen in space and time according to Newton's second law. Obviously those principles will fall short if we attempt to use them in situations they do not describe (e.g. where relativity becomes a concern), or if we attempt to use the data (mass of particles derived from the sample) to describe something it cannot measure, but numerical representation is effectively the entirety of the output, after factoring in error associated with the instrument. With respect to the final human interpretation component, conceptually it's about as simple as "Ice exists on Mars".

 

[Talos of Atmora]

The term used for this kind of talk is semantic noise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Whole description within a given framework. E.g., someone builds a mass spectrometer to ionize particles, which can have charge values varying according to integer values, and can be reliably accelerated to varying positions on a screen in space and time according to Newton's second law. Obviously those principles will fall short if we attempt to use them in situations they do not describe (e.g. where relativity becomes a concern), or if we attempt to use the data (mass of particles derived from the sample) to describe something it cannot measure, but numerical representation is effectively the entirety of the output, after factoring in error associated with the instrument. With respect to the final human interpretation component, conceptually it's about as simple as "Ice exists on Mars".

Nothing I've said should be taken to mean that I think instruments cannot measure physical attributes of the world. I'm not saying that instrumentation can't give us relatively accurate representations of the world; but I am saying that even these purportedly "objective" readings can only render physical phenomena in a particular way in order for humans to actually read them.

Nothing about instrumentation is objective, for one glaring reason in particular: "objective" means that something exists in a particular state whether it is observed or not, but instruments interfere with the objective reality that they aim to observe. Therefore they cannot test any objective reality of an object. It's a logical paradox.

Heisenberg's uncertainty relation effects every situation, not just the measurement of microscopic particles.

 

[rms]

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...tones_how_the_rock_and_roll_became_white.html

long