ebrown p wrote:
Thank you for your rational response Huxley.
No worries, I'm having a fun time. Sorry for not getting back 'til now. I missed your response.
I am using the word "objective" in the sense provably true outside of any specific cultural context. This is opposed to subjective; my point being that this type of beliefs are largely determined by the cultural context and world-view of the people involved. I realize that these terms need better definition.
As an aside, my first thought: Maybe Kuhn is effecting my thoughts more than I first realized.
I think that the scientific community is a culture, and that therefore science is not provably true outside of that specific cultural context. In fact, this is a strength of science -- it spreads cognitive power across a group of specialists who adopt a certain value-set in conjunction with a particular epistemology that allows for culture-wide trust in communication in conjunction with ever-refined model making. This doesn't preclude scientific realism, in my opinion, but the scientific community is a culture, and in order for science to prove something scientific to someone else, they will have to adopt at least the epistemic characteristics to understand the scientific argument (if not the scientific result).
Would you describe the position you are advocating currently as a belief?
What makes the belief that "All subjective beliefs can not be superior" better than the belief "A subjective belief can be superior"? (at least, I have read you thus far as advocating the first position)
EDIT: I am building to why I don't think objective/subjective is a good criteria for demarcation (as a scientific realist, myself), and why it's not terribly useful in differentiating between faith/beliefs/knowledge/etc.
Your criteria of objective/subjective, to me, just seems difficult to get around -- we're given language by culture, we're given concepts by culture, we're... very much effected by culture. And what's more, culture is an ambiguous concept, thereby shifting the difficulty in understanding objective/subjective to demarcating culture. Culture is also pervasive -- would learning some words in Spanish count as being "part of another culture", or would you still be considered "home-culture"? What about spending 2 years in Mexico? What that you have learned in that culture is from your culture effected by their culture, what is from their culture alone, and what is something that you have changed from their culture to your culture?
It's a sticky issue, I think. And, what's more, I don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit to solve. YMMV, of course, but I'm leaning towards looking at the objective/subjective as adjectives that can be useful in some contexts, and can trip our thinking up more than its worth in others.