Replies

Each of us has a particular worldview or cosmology. Both of us are equally "observers"; meaning each of us stands on our own turf, in our own spatiotemporal coordinates: We see what we can see from where we stand; we have particular life experiences, and education and so forth. We probably see many different things, from our own unique perspectives. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind the supposition that, because I don't see what you see, my own view is somehow illegitimate, false.

Again, from your post at 137, early on in this exchange:

Creation is a loving act. Beheading people is not. You cannot hide behind an argument of "moral equivalency," or of groundless personal bias here; i.e., my supposed lack of "objectivity." The distinctions I draw are perfectly "objective." Just open your eyes and look at what's going on. Then if you report back and say there's no difference among religious believers, I'd have to conclude that you are the one who is biased, who lacks objectivity.

The view from my "unique perspective" is that I see you claiming that you can't understand a supposition that you've already made.

The view from my "unique perspective" is that I see you claiming that you can't understand a supposition that you've already made.

My friend, it is you who does not understand it. From what I wrote earlier, you should have noticed that I said that knowledge acquisition was always a perfectly subjective enterprise. "Objectivity" can only enter into the game at the level of the descriptions we make of subjective experiences. If the descriptions are borne out by "facts on the ground," then the objectivity of the statements is validated.

Niels Bohr, recognizing the inherent subjectivity of human experiences of the world, extending particularly to worldviews and undisclosed presuppositions, insisted that science should be epistemologically pure. In effect, this reduces to two points: (1) Don't make claims about things you haven't directly observed; and (2), make full and fair disclosure of all elements that entered into the experimental design in tests of hypotheses, including a complete account of the equiment used, and the basic assumptions that lay behind the experimental design. I gather Bohr figured this would be the best way to "translate" the inherently subjective into something as close to objectivity that one can get -- for the purpose of protecting the integrity of science.

It seems many scientists nowadays fail to take Bohr's advice. And thus we have so many examples of "philosophizing" being done under the color of science. Theories of a materialistic, accidental universe (such as Monod's claim, mentioned earlier) and the common ancestor are prime examples of this phenomenon.

FWIW.