.

Dear Oliver, Dear David F.,

.

I am intrigued by your observations regarding the relationship of the enquirer and the objective in scientific research.

I perhaps mistakenly imagined that science was to do with objective knowledge exclusively and that religion was to do with subjective knowledge but not exclusively.

If, as you both seem to finally agree, the enquirer cannot be independent of the objective in scientific research, does this not introduce a degree of subjectivity into the research and disqualify the ensuing results as objective knowledge ?

I must confess that I was not aware of the impossibilty of the enquirer to be independent of the objective of his research.

In this light, scientific research would appear to be more correctly described as "personal observations and experiences" even if the research may be repeated by others with similar results.

As the results are necessarily determined by the relationship of dependendence of each individual person with the objective, ie., by the unique couple individual/objective, what guaranty is there that they will always be exactly identical ?

How can a unique personal relationship produce objective results ?

Should I revise my definition of science as an enterprise dealing with objective knowledge exclusively to that of an enterprise dealing with objective knowledge but not exclusively ?

Or do either or both of you have some other definition to suggest ?

.

Banjo Paterson,
>>Or do either or both of you have some other definition to suggest ?<<
What you are asking here is the subject of what is sometimes known as the quantum enigma. It is perhaps related to the other two epistemological dilemas: the Wigner’s (“the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”) and the enigma about mathematics being both and invention and discovery).

Actually, I have just finished reading the book ‘Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (OUP 2006) by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (both physicists, the former personally knew Einstein as well as John Bell). I do not know what is your knowledge of the mathematics behind quantum theory, but it is irrelevant for the understanding of this, in my mind unique, popularised treatment of the problem.

Of course, no solution is offered, it indeed is an enigma, at least for the time being. Let me repeat, Rosenblum is not an esoteric crank or what, but the former Chairperson of the Physics Department at the UC, Santa Cruz.

One quote:
“The quantum theory works perfectly; no prediction of the theory has ever been shown in error. … But if you take (it) seriously beyond practical purposes, it has baffling implications. Qauntum theory tells us that physics’ encounter with consciousness, as is DEMONSTRATED for the small, applies, in principle, to everything. And that “everything” can include the entire universe. Copernicus dethroned humanity from the cosmic center. Does quantum theory suggest that, in some mysterious sense, we ARE a cosmic centre?” (p. 207; I had to capitalise words that are in italics in the book).

Well, probably too ambitious words. I would have my own perspective on that, assigning (pure) mathematics a more central role in our epistemology, nevertheless we do have an enigma.

banjoe...quote..<<..my definition/of science/..as an enterprise>>>enter/prize...certainly sounds apt...

need some more/cash...to publish..or perish?..
revieuwed..by peers...also/paid...to make gain..from the prize..

no/..that certainly fits..the facts..

your spelling/is a bit wonkey
but..the summation ..is right on/the money

<<dealing with/objective knowledge>>>shaped and formed to fit the best return..either in fame/glory...or cash

objective is hardly the issue...an object/egsist...
they cant make their own..object...so they study..it..[oooops..get a grant..to study/it...]

and if it works out...its a nice/..big payday...they hold the patent..over it/for 75 years...[ok it/used to be..25 or so years]..but

money/is no object..as long as/you..hold the patent

<<<exclusively/..to that of an enterprise>>>yes exclusivity/fits nicely..as well..

with the prize being/exclusive knowledge/exclusive prize..
exclude..collude..seclude...yes it all defines/the art of science theory...nicely

<<<enterprise/dealing with objective..knowledge>>selectivly...as revieuwed by peers...with insider knowlwedge..to get the..other/prize

<<..But not exclusively?>>...
no of course not...lol..wrong...its about exclusive..
or rather ..the ability to exclude/..exclusivly...

the peers..make sure it stays..within the narow confines...of exclusivity..its an art form..

but thats not fair ..to simply rebut yours..and not present mine

what are we/defining again...oh...

<<my definition of science>>

science is the study..of nature/natural...excluding the un/natural..
seeking to control the nature...into the unnatural

its is a concept/that begins with a definitive..
then abstracts away from it..

repeatedly doing/..the same thing..
till that one time...things dont end the same...and a new''disscovery''..is made,sorry..discoverd,

,that one/exclusive/fact that changes facts.../makes..$$

that fact..then disappears/under the numbers...hiden further by peers....living/their past glories..who control the funding...

and accreditisation...who need to protect/the exclusive/franchise ..of theIR..specific branch of science..they hold in trust

the diversity of science/indicates there are many claims..to science..yet not all are..scientific..

many claiming science..dont have faulsifyables
WITHOUT fasulsifyables..they dont got any SCIENCE

thus there is validated science..with faulsifyables..and there is SCIENCE...that dont have faulsifyable..not one

yet both claim/the lable of science...lol

thanks be..to the peers/..the saintly ones..who have organised their belief...not in science,..,but arround it

science thus;..encompasses everything that needs..authority..structure...followers..money/and a reason to publish...

a selective belief-system..for cash..glory..or deciete/..as over/seen..by the peer..neo/elite...ie the same old elite..

that in time..may diss-appear/..publish or perish..thats science...

not fact..but sci-trance

David,
You say Von Braun was a war criminal. You are free to state your opinion here on OLO. I’ve already addressed that issue in detail elsewhere. I don’t think assigning culpability for the wrongs of WWII is the topic of this discussion.

-

Yuyutsu,
I ask who, if anyone, made the human race, as I understand that that is one of the central questions of ID. Were people, or other living things, created by a designer? It is the study of evidence for design within nature.

By analogy, if we find a beret in a paddock, we are usually capable, by using certain lines of logic, to establish whether it was designed by an intelligent agent, perhaps for the purpose of keeping the sun’s rays from burning the top of someone’s head. Or can a beret come about through natural processes of matter combining with gravity, wind, erosion, etc.?

In contrast, evolution (the topic mentioned in the summary statement at the top of this page) claims that people came about by totally natural processes.

Evidence that points to a grand designer is evidence for the existence of God.

God’s existence is an important concept with regard to faith. The Psalms declares that ‘the fool states in his heart that there is no God.’ The writer of Hebrews says that anyone who wants to please God must believe he exists and rewards those who diligently seek him. Believing in God’s existence is a minimum requirement for a Christian believer. We must also honour, love, and worship God. This is hard to do without first believing that he exists.

By the way, what is a ‘verbal document’?

Hello Banjo,

"If, as you both seem to finally agree, the enquirer cannot be independent of the objective in scientific research, does this not introduce a degree of subjectivity into the research and disqualify the ensuing results as objective knowledge?" - Banjo

Yes, experimentally,if, primatologist, Jane Goodall, observes the Great Apes from a hide, she is changing the environmental condition by her mere presence. Dr Goodall is not independent to the experiment because she is a part of it. However, "for practical purposes" the scientist would regard this situation as experimental error and assume independence. In science you still an experimenter and subject, plus independent variables and dependent variables.

As George alludes on the scale of the very small observation is held by QM to cause conditions.

I will need to come back on the interesting questions you raised.

Good moorning George,

"we ARE a cosmic centre" - George

As would every particle and waveform in the universe. Not only our conscience selves but the indiviual cell of which we are composed.

All,

The above does not change what I was saying with regard to the religionist and the scientist. An academic theologian like Barbara Theiring and a parish priest shall "for practical purposes" (above) have a fundamentally different relationship, when studying Christianity. Theiring will try to be detached, whereas, the priest, will wish to be further assimmilated.

Similarly, the scientist wants learn how to change "water into wine"; whereas the priest does not, because explaining miracles, negates divinity. If an ordinary man did change "water into wine" that might also create what developmental (child) psychologist, Jean Piaget, called "disequilibrium". To be "accommodated" (Piaget)into an exising belief system, the religionist might rationalise that, "God created man alone above the animals to perform this miracle," perhaps citing as support that Jesus gave special powers to the Apostles.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

We need not define science.

Karl Popper illustrated this point in his book, "The Open Society and its Enemies." A scientist is told to study the behaviour of sand dunes. He or she doesn't worry about defining a sand dune. The report of the findings is titled "A study of the movement of mounds of sand in height between a meter and a hundred meters." One may protest that sand dunes may be only a half meter in height, but does it matter?

Science produces workable results in studies of the behaviour of animate and inanimate matter. Whatever definition one can make of science may be pulled apart by philosophers. Much of the Creationist effort on this list to discredit evolutionary biology is based on half understood definitions of science. It doesn't seem to matter to them that it works to explain the development of life on this planet and is used in such applications as the treatment of infectious diseases.

We study science by doing science. We learn enough about science to perform experiments and make hypotheses. When we have a difference with other scientists there are mechanisms which eventually resolve the conflict and determine which views are accepted. There is no serious scientific disagreement with evolution although there are differences in regard to details.

We learn about religion by absorbing a body of knowledge encompassing a description of our particular religious faith and what it requires of us. Others with the same religion may believe differently. There exists no reliable method to settle these differences so we have schisms and conflict which may be resolved by violence.

Scientific studies of religion examine it in the light of anthropology, sociology and history. That differs from instruction in a particular religion. There are studies in comparative religion. These are valuable since it can lend insight into one's own beliefs. Religious organisations may promote science. The Vatican has an excellent astronomical observatory staffed by priests with scientific training. These priests cannot be Creationists who accept a literal account of the creation in Genesis and also be competent astronomers.