NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14212

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 9.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!tillage!gil
From: [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: objective environment? (was Save the Planet)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 07:28:43 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
Lines: 175


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 > Well, in physical science, when we make a mistake we are generally rewarded
 > in short order with a conclusion that makes no sense. "That violates
 > angular momentum conservation." or "That violates the second law." or some
 > such.

As is the case in the social sciences. What, do you think we just make
things up as we go along, or what? Actually, of all branches physics
and anthropology are probably most closely methodological related as
we face a similar level of uncertainty in making observations, unlike
zoology for example where they appear quite free to simply call a pig
a porcine specimen and throw it in a box with other porcine species.

They only really run into strife when they discover such creatures as
the platypus and the echinda, but all they did there was to throw them
both in the same box together as *monotremes*, despite the fact that
one is a aquatic browser with a duck-like bill while the other is a
terrestrial ant eater with a snout and long tongue.

          There are objective criteria for judging truth. I am not one who
 > believes that they cover all aspects of reality, btw, but having experienced
 > the power and consistency of these criteria I am not about to casually
 > dismiss them either.

Sure, and when you apply a 19 mm spanner to a 12 mm hexagonal nut the
outcome does not make much sense either. Even with an adjustable spanner
to fit all size nuts, however, the spanner itself only makes any sense
at all against the invention of nuts and bolts, and indeed against the
machinery within which context nuts and bolts themselves make sense.
Else they are all just various lumps of steel, or even probably just
ore still in the ground.

Also, your view of science as a system of belief to which you yourself
subscribe is plainly exhibited in your discourse, and while I do not
in any way dismiss the power and consistency of science I do suggest
it does have its own contextual utility, I have my own separate set of
religious and philosophical philanderings, thanks very much.

 > Your claim that the idea of an objective reality is untenable is completely
 > inconsistent with the success and power of physical science.

Hang on, please make some effort to trace the path by which resources
are fed into the "objective reality" of your successful and powerful
physical science, the historical context in which it arose, and the
cultural and political context by which it is maintained.

Further, BTW, I would put to you that your view of "objective reality"
is very much subjective. Indeed, how do you make living that you are
able to pursue it? Who do you go to see for funding, or when an issue
arises concerning your salary? To what extent is the receipt of funds
or salary contingent upon your continued adherence to one particular
view of the world not by any stretch of the imagination shared by most
other people on earth?

Or are you a scientist because that is your employment category in an
institution, rather than what you *do* yourself? (no offense intended,
just part of the scope of my analysis)

 > I agree that a fallacy appropriately called scientism exists. I do not
 > agree that objecting to a bald statement of the non-existence of objective
 > reality is an example of that fallacy.

My initial statement was, quote, "The notion of a single objective
environment we together must look after better is absolutely untenable,
when plainly one's subjective social, built and natural environments
are merely a part of the wider context in which one find's oneself."

To which you replied, "Eep. This is another hazard of an education in
social science rearing its ugly head", then going on to complain how
dangerous it was, how "inimical to the whole program of science" as
can only be interpreted as a threat to the cultural and social agenda
of certain people deploying the rules of science in its pursuit, as
against religious, ethical or philosophical standards for example.

Now, I would argue that there may indeed be a whole lot of matter out
there, partly external to us all but also containing others to which
it is partly internal, but I would also argue that in any event its
reality is defined by what we each might *realise* about it.

I would argue further that the rules of science are far more useful
tools in exploring, internalising and realising the nature of that
matter than other standards, but certainly not exclusively.

 > No doubt. But it was no such plea that caused my vehement objection, but
 > more like its opposite, which seemed to me tantamount to a claim that evidence
 > is irrelevant. See the paragraph at the top of this posting, your initial
 > claim that prompted my response.

Please *do* proceed with your demonstration, and present your evidence
in its support. It is the persistent lack of evidence here which leads
me to suggest a religious, philosophical and/or political agenda being
pursued in the name of science.

Michael, please *SHOW* us your objective reality, your single objective
environment. When you do, I will proceed to turn it around and show
its many complex facets to which we do *not* all have access. All each
of us can possibly have initially is a single view, which can indeed
be expanded and elaborated very considerably through our propensity
for exploring, thinking about it, and discussing it with others of our
own kind.

But we cannot possible each explore it all, and the model we have
built to explain it is very much the outcome of negotiations among
human beings, isn't it? Your very own history reveals that, as each
step in revealing knowledge is attributed to real people at precise
points in history profoundly involved in arguments with other people,
isn't it?

If someone else is mistaken it does not make their particular view more
subjective than that of the scientist; of all people scientists pursue
a discipline which very much admits of error at its foundation. It is
the probability one can be certain that one is *not* in error which
underwrites the pursuit of science, yes?

 > I apologize if anything I have said can be construed as an attack on your
 > person rather than your ideas. Sometimes exasperation gets the better of
 > me. My intention is only to discuss ideas, and to avoid ad hominem attacks
 > despite the frequency with which certain others resort to them. But though
 > I haven't been a saint in this regard, I see no evidence of a personal
 > attack on my part in this latest exchange, although your use of a childish
 > familiar form to address me ("Mikey") might be so construed.

Well, you brought that on yourself by virtue of your earlier and as
yet neither explained nor substantiated criticism of me. Now, what do
you find so exasperating about the social sciences, that you would so
suddenly and vehemently argue that the notion of subjective context
is inimical to the program of science, a hazard of the worse sort?

Perhaps the same patient and thoughtful demonstration for which you
plea might well reveal instead its useful and positive contribution to
the program of science by shedding light on its origins, history and
progress to date. But that progress is marred in the extreme by the
constant sniping of so-called scientists against other people.

Why don't you want to work together with them instead? That is the
question I find most intriguing, but as yet put the phenomenon down to
academic politics and the determination of funding priorities rather
than to any demonstrable divinity, or superordination from the wad.

 > It's an extremely interesting topic, but my past forays into this area
 > (from before your arrival) have convinced me that this is the wrong forum
 > to address them. I will only say that the idea of discussion based on data
 > and experience you cite above is one which appeals to me. But if reality is
 > merely subjective without an objective component, what is the point of data?

Hang on again, I have never stated anywhere at anytime that reality is
"merely subjective without an objective component." The issue is very
much concerned with the propensity of "scientists" to bludgeon others
with something they call "objective reality", without ever bothering
to think that they may well have a valid point of view worthy of some
respect and consideration.

It also must indeed be taken into account that the scientific community
is itself made up of humans with their own social organisation within
and interacting with the wider social and cultural context, which is
as valid an object of study as any other human community.

 > If you'd like to discuss this at greater length, perhaps you could
 > recommend a more appropriate newsgroup?

Well, we already had it running in sci.anthropology until some dick
tried to pull a stunt with extremely dubious "evidence", but here
is as good a place as any. There is no reason a discussion on the
validity and reliability of scientific propositions cannot take place
on a science forum.

My only concern is that you are prepared to discard theories which
fail to comply with observations, and accept that theories which do
comply are the outcome of human activity comprehensible to humans, to
be integrated into some human cultures and not others, yes?

Gil