Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:48:42 +0100
Peter, List
Peter made som good points on 'objectivity' which I think we should notice
carefully. The 'meta-philosophical ideal of objectivity' as Peter calls it,
has to do with truth, and is part of the very idea of doing philosophy and
science. If this is disregarded, then we are entering another project, call
it art, or life, not to be deranged but neither to be confused with the
project of open inquiry.
The point to note is that the Subject-Object distinction does _not_ have
to do with the (misused) ideal of 'objectivity' in any straight forward
way. It has been used in such a way in 'objectivist' science, this is true,
but objectivist science is not equal to the project of open inquiry as such.
I find two things especially important.
One is that 'objectivism' in science, taking 'what can be agreed upon by
the community of inquirers, in the long run' (Peirce's term) as that which
can be true and taking anything else to be 'subjective', is severely
delimiting our rational powers; it is the same as saying that we cannot use
reason on most of what matters most in our lives. If this concept of
objectivity is taken as a delimiting criteria for what we can find any
truth about, this has a range of bad effects.
It gives an absolutist understanding of science - that which is within the
limit cannot be doubted. All science tries to find a place within the
limit, this means that much science fails to express the contextual limits
of their conclusions, because this would make it less 'objective'. Hence we
live in a society where what's rational is taken in an absolute sense,
"science says", "it has been scientifically proven", "we know (stated
unconditionally)". We live with a dichotomy between the 'objective' and the
not 'objective', placing too much belief in the 'objective', and too little
in the not 'objective'. And furthermore this established concept of
objectivity has hindered due concern for any better criteria or concept of
truth, based on the very process of open inquiry. This is _really_ bad :-(
The other important aspect in this, is the positive angle on the
subject-object distinction. The possibility of making a more contextual
science, where one can utilize multiple complementary truths to depend on,
according to the point of view. Where the idea in objectivist science is
that we can remove the subject all together, a contextual science will give
up this impossible ideal and stress the necessity of making clear the
particular situation of inquiry, conveying the kind of 'subject' involved
(goals, values, methods, etc.) and how this relates to the 'object' of
inquiry, to the knowledge and the non-knowledge obtained. (Non-knowledge is
that which is hidden in/by any particular context.) It is past urgent to
reform the project of science.
Anyway, thanks for your mail, Peter!
Contextually
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:47 CEST