LS Re: Explain the Dynamic-Static split


Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:31:48 +0100


Hi Squad, Bo

Bo wrote:
>Science claims
>that it is studying a valueless world in an objective manner - and
>that seems true as long as one scratches the surface, but the MOQ
>goes deeper and unfolds another picture.

Some of Pirsig's examples, and other absurdities thrown up in this
discussion suggest either that Science is actually NOT really objective,
or "OBJECTIVITY" itself is too vague a term to use rigorously. The main
characteristic of Scientific Method is actually REPRODUCIBILITY. In the
physical sciences, objectvity and reproducibility can be considered
nearly synonymous, but this breaks down when one gets onto other
"sciences".
I quote from my very first post to the Lila Squad:-
>So what's wrong with subject-object metaphysics? Well nothing really.
It
>does tend to play down this business of data evaluation, but good
>scientists know this and judge data on clearly defined criteria.
>There are much bigger problems when "scientific method" is extended
>beyond the hard sciences (e.g. to anthropology), where the criteria for
>selecting relevant data become increasingly arbitrary.

Jonathan

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST