Posted by femlite on November 12, 2003, at 6:38:07
In reply to In defense of objectivity » femlite, posted by DSCH on November 12, 2003, at 1:31:36
> > Odder still is the ability to act on one's own behalf.
Let me try again. When acting on ones belief do you find unusual the acting or the beleif?
> Notice I said "on one's on behalf", not belief. Can a bacterium be said to have belief? However, it goes about and finds food and trades information with other bacteria and reproduces. As such it performs infintely better than any automata that we have yet produced, and in a microscopic package to boot.
>
> > .. concerned only with the fit of theory to observations rather than the fit of theory to our preconceptions of how the universe works.>
> That is why the final appeal is to experiment. And the presuppositions are discarded along with the used paper coffee cups if they do not work.
;-)
I wish I had such great faith in true human objectivity
> Not Pasteur. He was a vitalist anyway. As most continential biologists were at the turn of the century.
You have me. What is vitalist, and what does that have to do with the persistence of discovery in a concept or thereory that is currently unbelieved?> > They take on an air of reality (or even "ueber-reality" to make a gross cross-linguistic construct) to the user, but do any of them necessarily conform to objective reality? Is it even testable? However, they are indeed interesting for revealing what is latent inside of our own "mental territory".
> >
> > ***As science is continually evolving, how can any scientist worth his salt claim that it is possible to possess "objective" realism? To rule out what we have not yet proven or disproven seems a lack of true scientific spirit.
>
> See above. Frankly I have read so many different "great revelations" people have had on acid or mushrooms that they certainly can't all be true reports on the nature of reality.
This conversation may have started on this premise, but their are a GREAT many revelations unrelated to such "medicinal" inducement. As a scientist it is good to examine all possiblities, no? But an honest one must admit that true objectivety can only belong to one who knows all.
> > ***I have great respect for your opinions on MOST occassions DSCH, (and shall continue to have). And not ALL Germans are so materialistic. ;-)
>
> Yes, Hitler for one was quite the romantic, nes pas? ;-) Artist as leader, vessel for his peoples' remdemption and vengance, and history-changing figure. Reality bent to the Will (that is until the rest of world came knocking on his doorstep). All vicious nonsense.
The Romantic period was not noted for enlightend thinking, well unless you were a true cynic.
> On the other hand Niels Bohr, for having such an uncompromising view of science and the philosophy of science, was a family man, father-figure to a community of scientists, political conscience of the nuclear age, and Danish cultural figure.
Im sure I dont compare as a philospher or scientist but
I was speaking of moi, silly :-) and I am NOT a materialist. (as if you couldnt tell) ;-)
What science are you studying?
poster:femlite
thread:276748
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031031/msgs/278915.html