MD Absolutely objective

From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 16:29:20 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Solidarity truth"

    Hi everyone who has been involved in the "Solidarity Truth" thread and
    related discussions.

    It will come as no surprise to Platt to hear me state my opinion that truth
    is largely something arrived at by agreement rather than an absolute. My
    position is embodied by the one-liner TRUE IS AN ADJECTIVE - which reminds
    one to always ask "true to what?"

    My main reason for chiming in here is to tackle this philosophical edificice
    called objectivity. It is oft said that truth is objective, and that
    objectivity is the basis of science and other academic pursuits.
    Objectivity is a sacred, Platonistic ideal, but how do you prove it? My own
    experience of academia is that you don't.

    The first benchmark test of scientific "truth" is reproducibility.
    Hypotheses rise and fall on this simple pragmatic test. The reporting of
    data and the conditions under which they were obtained is a major component
    of most scientific papers - we can call this the pragmatic, Arisotelian
    part.

    The second major component of a scientific paper is the attempt to
    "understand" how the data fit in with current and/or proposed theories -
    this is the Platonic part. In this, one has to argue that the observations
    concur with (are "true to") the proposed hypotheses. Anyone engaged in
    research quickly learns that while inconsistent proposals must deemed
    "invalid" (untrue) , there remain an unlimited number of valid proposals
    that may be made. This was mentioned in ZAMM, and given as the motivation
    for young Phaedrus to leave science.

    The main mechanism I know of by which academia "judges" the above issues is
    the peer review process. Matt's term "solidarity truth" seems to be
    consistent with this process. My only proviso is to add that while one
    particular theory may be the most popular (the current dogma), academia is
    rather democratic and "valid" alternative theories are respected. Often, a
    minority view eventually becomes the new dogma.

    Thus, I find the idea of "Objective, Absolute, Truth" unrelated to real
    world concerns . I know I have said most of what is in this post before, and
    apologise to everyone who remembers and doesn't need reminding.

    All the best,

    Jonathan

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 18 2003 - 17:51:21 GMT