A Simple View

[newbie01]

The scientific method has been a great way of understanding the enviorment of which we live in, it has proved to send rockets to the moon it has cured many diseases yet it also has led to the atom bomb. The method is simple we make unbias observations of a certian aspect of the enviorment/ universe then analyze and come up with a hypothisis if it is a good one then it should explain and predict future events to come. Yet some believe that the method is flawed in the fact that our observations are bias based on the fact that what we see is affected by our mental set or beilfes

So the question to start this disscusion will be

Are are observations we make free from our mental set or can they simply be unbais?

Peace out
please argue :boxing:

[scameter]

They are subjective, limited to the individual's mind. But, if we attempt to see things from a sort of indifferent/calm view and not from our own view only, some objectivity can be achieved, but not much.

[Thomas Knierim]

I am not sure what "beilfes" means. I suppose "unbais" means unbiased?

newbie01: Are are observations we make free from our mental set or can they simply be unbais?

This question, how the "mental set" relates to our observations, was treated in great detail -and essentially answered- by Immanuel Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant), especially in the work that he is most famous for, the Critique of Pure Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason).

Cheers, Thomas

[newbie01]

sorry that was kind of general i meant they we interperit data is influnce by knowlegde and expectations and mabey our cultral ubringing

[newbie01]

does the moon look larger as it approaches the horizon or is larger

[Thomas Knierim]

Yes, cultural upbringing, existing knowledge and learning do of course influence our thought very much. No question about that. All too often we are asking the wrong questions. But I am not sure how this relates to the scientific method.

Take evolution theory, for example. Although long established and generally accepted as factual, there are still some people who question evolution -or at least neo-darwinism- mostly because of religious convictions.

Now, let's assume that someone finds a piece of evidence that falsifies evolution theory. Say a human skeleton from the Paleocene or Cretacious period. Provided that the observation is confirmed -for example by dating methods- then there is nothing that the evolution theorist can do to salvage evolution theory (except screaming in anguish and banging his head).

That's the beauty of falsification. It is independent of cultural or individual bias.

Cheers, Thomas

[newbie01]

yes very well agreeded falseification is a great?

But i am asking if part of the scientific method is analysing and interpreting data then how does, How do we analyze and interpret data irrealavant?

[newbie01]

and aside from Immanuel Kant what do you think as an individual not Immanuel Kant sorry if this is to blunt.

Peace.

[Kether]

I am not sure what "beilfes" means.
I think it means 'beliefs'.

I don't believe that human knowledge can ever be entirely objective, but that some forms of knowledge and analysis are more remove from conceptualisation than others. We need such "objective" knowledge in order to build a subjectivity that corresponds well to reality.

I've said this many times, and Scameter has always replied with his assertion that science is subjective. I agree to an extent, but the alternative he gives is direct observation.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean and your reasoning behind it, Scameter, and I think it's time we fully discussed this instead of me and you repeating our theories like mantras. :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

newbie01: and aside from Immanuel Kant what do you think as an individual not Immanuel Kant sorry if this is to blunt.

Personally I reject Kant's transcendental idealism as well as the notion of a noumenon (= thing-in-itself). But Kant was certainly right about the mind operating within the confines of preestablished structures, such as space, time, causality, possibility, necessity, and so on. I believe that the set of statements which Kant called a priori statements represent the foundation of commonsense reality as well as the foundation of reason. Bertrand Russell used to put it this way: Reality is a logical construct that we derive from sense data. However, I acknowledge that there is a realm apart from commonsense reality and that there are phenomena which are not based in commonsense reality. Among these phenomena are consciousness, karma, psychic and spiritual capabilities. In other words, these are the phenomena which scientific orthodoxy today views as the twilight zone. I would not call these phenomena supernatural; they are simply outside the framework of present day science.

This means science is objective in the sense that it has neither the freedom to violate a priori statements nor to pose arbitrary synthetic (a posteriori) statements. The synthetic statements of science are very carefully chosen, verified, and in some cases disproved. However, science cannot be objective when it comes to phenomena that involve consciousness. Contemporary science is principally incapable of dealing with these phenomena, and therein lies its basic limitation. The 20th century has seen a shift from a phenomenal/realist understanding of the world towards a materialist/realist understanding, further isolating and separating consciousness. Conscious experience itself is not subject to science. Despite contrary claims of orthodox philosophers and scientists, all explanations of consciousness that were proposed until now, whether dualist, materialist, reductionist, functionalist, or whatever, have either failed or were unsatsifactory.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

So, you Thomas believe that outside of this reality there exists a supernatural reality which includes the spiritual, karma, psychic and conscious capabilities?

[Thomas Knierim]

I neither like the word supernatural because of its mad hatter connotation, nor do I like to talk of realities in plural, because there is only one reality. Think about this: We readily accept nonphysical/immaterial concepts such as beauty, goodness, evil, chaos, order, etc., which we consider to be quite real. Beyond these there are other obscure phenomena, which are likewise nonphysical/immaterial aspects of reality, but which are much less accepted, because they are not part of everyday experience. So, people without special experience/training tend to say that they don't exist.

Let me put it this way: for practical matters I find it wise to assume property dualism. This means that reality can be described in terms of matter and mind. The scientific method is a formidable instrument to penetrate the matter side of the duality and open up amazing insights into that aspect of reality. The mind side of the duality cannot be approached in the same way. The scientific method fails at this point. In my view, property dualism is only an abstraction and ultimately there is no duality. Non-dual reality, however, is not conceptually intelligible.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Your view sounds very much Taoist to me, Thomas. And honestly, the mind side of your duality concept, to me, would be for the work of philosophy and perhaps theology, but especially the former. Both are necessary; and in their necessity to one another, they form a whole, consisting of two seperate sides, yet attached out of necessity to one another, ultimately in the search of truth.