One of my beliefs is that objectivity is an illusion.
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
The definition of the word 'objective' invokes a notion that there are some hard 'facts' that can be perceived as being objective and the perception of such an 'objective' entity is immune to any sort of individual thought. This I feel is inaccurate. It is impossible to experience any phenomenon without individual interpretation. The general trend in determining what is objective seems to be nothing more than labeling the opinion of a 'subjective multitude' as being objective. If a majority of people perceive an object, phenomenon, or condition in the same way, it is deemed to be the objective interpretation. In any discussion that pertains to the determination of whether or not something is objective, what we consider are the opinions of others. That alone makes it highly subjective.
The most obvious manifestation of this view seems to be in the social construct of the human race. We have a number of so-called ‘self evident truths’ that are the objective pillars on which society is built. Truths like ‘murder is wrong’, ‘everyone has the right to pursue happiness’, ‘all men are equal’ and other such ideas all have an air of absoluteness that is supposed to be independent of individual interpretation. I do not agree. I strongly believe that every such idea has evolved from a collective mind of humans (from trial and error of course) and has been elevated to an objective status after societies have found them to be extremely important for the existence of a stable and steadily advancing civilization. Our day to day laws fall in the same category and are formed in exactly the same way except that most are not grandiose enough to be elevated to a higher stature. “Thou shalt wear thy seat-belt while driving” doesn’t exactly have an inspiring and divine all-encompassing ring to it.
The biggest threat to a view like this would be scientific facts (gravity, fields, forces, evolution). A common understanding seems to be that there exist cold scientific facts that are as objective as possible and the goal of any scientific endeavor is the attainment and understanding of this knowledge. At the risk of sounding like a colossal idiot I very apprehensively say that I do not agree with this view either. Throughout history, even after the age of reason, ‘scientific facts’ that were thought to have been backed by mountains of experimental evidence have been disproved (or at least revised, eg: Newton’s Laws of motion) time and again. It seems preposterous to think that at some point in time we will arrive at the final and absolute explanation of a phenomenon and such an explanation can be labeled as an objective fact.
The generally accepted notion is that the universe is deterministic, that it is governed by absolute objective laws and all of our theories and their revisions are just iterations before we end up at this “truth”. I very well understand that a majority of scientists are smart enough to realize that theories are meant to be critiqued and revised. What seems ironic to me is that a mode of thinking that does not encourage rigid dedication to any theory as being absolute has as its ultimate goal, the discovery of the absolute laws of nature. Historically, classical physics was thought to be one such absolute explanation with no improvements needed. Yet, quantum physics was discovered. Is it justified that when/if we discover the grand unification theory we will call it the ‘absolute truth’ and accept it unflinchingly? Of course, one could argue that it is just a matter of semantics, but the majority of the human population does believe in absolute truths (be it from a religious god or Einstein’s god i.e nature) which is what I am addressing.
My point is that at some level even the so-called absolute scientific facts are largely ‘mass subjective’ and not purely ‘objective’. I have a belief that there are no such absolute truths and everything we make of the world around us is the result of a collective understanding and acceptance (much like the ‘Borg’ from Star Trek :P). I will admit that I do not share the confidence of the applicability of such a non-objective view of the world in the scientific realm as I have in the case of the social realm. I have a vague uneasiness about this and I cannot figure out why. Must be some ‘purpose of life’ thing!
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
The definition of the word 'objective' invokes a notion that there are some hard 'facts' that can be perceived as being objective and the perception of such an 'objective' entity is immune to any sort of individual thought. This I feel is inaccurate. It is impossible to experience any phenomenon without individual interpretation. The general trend in determining what is objective seems to be nothing more than labeling the opinion of a 'subjective multitude' as being objective. If a majority of people perceive an object, phenomenon, or condition in the same way, it is deemed to be the objective interpretation. In any discussion that pertains to the determination of whether or not something is objective, what we consider are the opinions of others. That alone makes it highly subjective.
The most obvious manifestation of this view seems to be in the social construct of the human race. We have a number of so-called ‘self evident truths’ that are the objective pillars on which society is built. Truths like ‘murder is wrong’, ‘everyone has the right to pursue happiness’, ‘all men are equal’ and other such ideas all have an air of absoluteness that is supposed to be independent of individual interpretation. I do not agree. I strongly believe that every such idea has evolved from a collective mind of humans (from trial and error of course) and has been elevated to an objective status after societies have found them to be extremely important for the existence of a stable and steadily advancing civilization. Our day to day laws fall in the same category and are formed in exactly the same way except that most are not grandiose enough to be elevated to a higher stature. “Thou shalt wear thy seat-belt while driving” doesn’t exactly have an inspiring and divine all-encompassing ring to it.
The biggest threat to a view like this would be scientific facts (gravity, fields, forces, evolution). A common understanding seems to be that there exist cold scientific facts that are as objective as possible and the goal of any scientific endeavor is the attainment and understanding of this knowledge. At the risk of sounding like a colossal idiot I very apprehensively say that I do not agree with this view either. Throughout history, even after the age of reason, ‘scientific facts’ that were thought to have been backed by mountains of experimental evidence have been disproved (or at least revised, eg: Newton’s Laws of motion) time and again. It seems preposterous to think that at some point in time we will arrive at the final and absolute explanation of a phenomenon and such an explanation can be labeled as an objective fact.
The generally accepted notion is that the universe is deterministic, that it is governed by absolute objective laws and all of our theories and their revisions are just iterations before we end up at this “truth”. I very well understand that a majority of scientists are smart enough to realize that theories are meant to be critiqued and revised. What seems ironic to me is that a mode of thinking that does not encourage rigid dedication to any theory as being absolute has as its ultimate goal, the discovery of the absolute laws of nature. Historically, classical physics was thought to be one such absolute explanation with no improvements needed. Yet, quantum physics was discovered. Is it justified that when/if we discover the grand unification theory we will call it the ‘absolute truth’ and accept it unflinchingly? Of course, one could argue that it is just a matter of semantics, but the majority of the human population does believe in absolute truths (be it from a religious god or Einstein’s god i.e nature) which is what I am addressing.
My point is that at some level even the so-called absolute scientific facts are largely ‘mass subjective’ and not purely ‘objective’. I have a belief that there are no such absolute truths and everything we make of the world around us is the result of a collective understanding and acceptance (much like the ‘Borg’ from Star Trek :P). I will admit that I do not share the confidence of the applicability of such a non-objective view of the world in the scientific realm as I have in the case of the social realm. I have a vague uneasiness about this and I cannot figure out why. Must be some ‘purpose of life’ thing!
4 comments:
ro...
there is a lot of meaningless philosophy that can be debated regarding subjectivism and objectivism and you can tangle yourself up in circles without ever reaching a satisfactory answer.
1. If you take the view that sensory perceptions are the limit of objective reality and that is different for everyone, then this is something unrelated to physics and is in the realm of metaphysics.
My personal view: If you are a vegetable and cant see, hear, smell touch or taste but are trapped inside your brain, it doesnt make the rest of the world an illusion.
2. Regarding Physics:
Newtons laws are not wrong. They have a limited range of applicability (low speeds, large distances, small gravitational effects).
There is nothing wrong with a scientific law being disproved in a certain regime. This doesn't make the laws any less real. It just limits the domain of applicability.
The laws are powerful and absolute (it is a different, and physically testable question, whether these laws change with time or could have been selected from a set of possible laws).
They are powerful because you can predict the outcome of someone elses experiments. This is exactly what makes physical phenomena "facts" of an objective reality.
3. your point about determinism is wrong. The laws of nature are inherently probabalistic is the first lesson you learn in quantum mechanics. This does not mean the laws are guesswork or that there is no law. What it means is that the laws of nature allow outcomes to occur with a certain probability which cannot be known by any method a priori.
However, by collecting a large set of samples, one can construct the apriori probabilities to a good approximation and hence you arrive at the best possible predictions that one could make of nature.
4. Regarding future directions in physics. It is unknown if there is a single law that describes the laws of physics (the goal of a Grand unified theory search/string theory). However, past trends since the beginning of physics have taught us that various seemingly unrelated phenomena such as the attraction of an apple to the earth and the motion of the heavenly bodies are in fact described by the same law.
If you take the naive approach of a layman then you can safely choose to be in a state of blissful ignorance about the laws that nature obeys but this doesnt make these laws any less real. Nor does it exempt you from them.
-Renta
Also, this reminds me of a bugs bunny cartoon, where a young Elmer Fudd walks off the edge of a cliff and keeps walking without falling.
Bugs Bunny says "Doc, are'nt you forgetting something?"
Elmer Fudd: "What?"
Bugs: "Gravity"
Elmer Fudd: "oh thats ok, we havent learnt about gravity yet"
Renta, you are right on the money when you say that a lot of meaningless philosophy can be discussed. I wrote this for fun but before I address your points let me give you a bigger picture. The driving force for this view of mine is the social construct I was addressing. I am thoroughly convinced of its accuracy. Only as an extension I got to thinking about the whole objectivity/subjectivity angle on science too and as I mentioned I am still a little vague about this in my head.
1) I do not fully agree but this just boils to a metaphysical discussion which is better carried out in person.
2) I fully understand your point about Newton's Laws not being wrong and in fact that is why I added the phrase 'revised'. I agree with everything you say in this point and I am afraid once again it is coming down to the metaphysical definition of the word 'absolute'. So ditch.
3) is something I did not know at all. I never looked at the laws in that way. Very interesting!!!!
4) Let me ask you this...do you think we will find the final set of governing laws ever? The ones that are meant to describe the universe (or even just one aspect of it) in totality and most importantly, laws that WILL not need any revision?
Your last paragraph is a thinly veiled insult and I want to say 'Fuck you Renta'! :) Seriously though, I think it will help if I say that the broader theme of my post was metaphysical, an exercise in brain farts so to speak and I am not certainly not questioning the validity of the scientific method.
ERRATA: speak and I am certainly not questioning the validity of the scientific method.
Post a Comment