Objectivity is shared subjectivity

What are you saying, flushd? There are no alternative systems of scientific thought...scientific = objective. Where is the irony and the problem?

Doktor S,

The guy who was "unaware of the wall" is a "system" which for an external observer catastrophically adapted to its external environment. i.e what was observed was the interaction which a physicist might say was a "repulsive force situation" or a theist might say was "divine retribution for sin". If the system survives the catastrophe ( a mathematical term) it may become an external observer itself of an event in "its minds eye" which has similarities to those "events" which had occurred for external observers. I am arguing here that (a) that "events" are observer dependent and (b) that the concept "wall" is irrelevant in its statistical particulars ...brick boundary etc...except for its "solidity" which is an interactive property NOT possessed of itself. This is the key issue,,,,, ALL properties are essentially predictions of interactions, not descriptions of an external world. To paraphrase Heisenberg "we never observe the world, only the result of our interactions". The fact that we project such interactive experiences as "properties of the world" is philosophical "naive realism".

Re: Objectivity is shared subjectivity


As an aside: this is a tidy binarization of art and science, but many artists (especially in the 20th and 21st centuries) would vehemently disagree that their goal is to express their inner, subjective realities. Whole schools of artists have been devoted to espousing the exact opposite. This is not to say that a receiver isn't still entitled to interpret artworks as expressions of the artist's aesthetics, beliefs and politics... but in countless cases the artist himself/herself would never admit that their works expressed any such thing.

stuh505,

I believe Flushd is referring to the quantum mechanics which takes on board the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (See my reply to Dr. S above). If you look say at Feynman's lectures for example you will find that "objectivity" is eclipsed by "what works for predictive purposes". This allows him to talk about the "observation of particles" in terms of the sum of "probability vectors" and this summation can include local "time reversals". It seems therefore that "objectivity" is is a psychological aspect of consensus at the macro-level whereby our commonality of biological systems implies a commonality of biological experiences. Such experiences are projected as "an objective world". Problems arise when the analysis moves above or below the biological level where the only consensus lies in the intenal coherence of mathematical models. The nature of the problem becomes one of "applicability" not "objectivity".

Re: Objectivity is shared subjectivity


Is art accepted by those who know as being about inner reality with some exceptions, or is art like science, about outer reality with some exceptions?

I think what we are dancing around here is that one does not need a knowledge of optical phenomenon to enjoy the beauty of a rainbow while some need to 'balance the equation' to appreciate the sum.
Some see the ocean, some see the waves, and some see the sand but each has some subjective observance that leads to a similar objectivity.

It's difficult to answer that question, stuh. The biggest problem is my own inability thus far to switch over and understand scientific thinking as I was taught in school. The kind that calls itself 'objective' and the kind that dominates the world I have been exposed to. To me, I could not grasp it except by memorization. If I could do that, I may or maybe not! be able to explain it better.

Fresco, thanks for bridging the gap a bit. What you said made sense and is consistent with the line of thought i was going in.

Ok stuh, I'll try. "There are no alternative systems of scientific thought".
I disagree. There are.

"Scientific = objective "
I agree with you. I think it is a matter of language and percepetion of what is objective. What initial position the 'instrument' takes as a default.

"Where is the irony and the problem?"
The irony, this is only me speaking from my point of view, is in very many scientists (including educators and people in positions of power that influence other aspects of human affairs, such as doctors) consider themselves to be Objective. And so arises the "Doctor-God' or 'Math-God' whose shield is Objectivity (amen).

It is ironic because some of these very same people are so deeply entrenched in severe subjectivity. An inability to 'switch' positions and consider a situation from more than one place.

The problem? That method of holding the stance of objectivity can present some problems in regards to going to extremes. I see it as piercing far into one way of thinking of the world - and calling it objective - and sometimes ending up far in space, unconcerned and ungrounded to the human person.

Is science about people first and foremost, or is about 'objectivity' 'truth' whatever?

In the name of objectivity, technology has advanced in directions which no longer make sense in terms of *good it has to offer man, weighed against the possible negatives. IMO.

There is no right way to look at it. I am only pointing out that there is a different way of looking at 'science' itself.

Enjoying the sand or the ocean, maybe.

Re: Objectivity is shared subjectivity


It of course depends on the repertory or even the individual artwork. No blanket statement about "art" can possibly hope to account for everything. (It should also be noted that a receiver is free to meet an artwork on whatever terms he or she deems appropriate, whether or not these terms are "sanctioned" by the artist, so far as we can tell.) It is true that certain periods of art can be characterized by an opposition between subjective experience and objective reality (post-WWI neoclassicism à la Stravinsky comes to mind); but there's quite a lot of art that isn't concerned with that binarism at all, making it rather irrelevant. (I would frankly put most pre-1800 music in that category.) I suppose a receiver "in the know" would have a good idea of when this opposition is or isn't a useful model for the art in question.