You should have been around to ask Newton that question when he posited his theory of gravity when he said “hypotheses non fingo” (I feign no hypotheses) when asked to explain what gravity was, or Marconi (who invented the radio) when asked about Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism “Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism is Maxwell’s equations.”
It sounds like you are positing some interpretation here as a lack of interpretation. Is there some perspectiveless perspective? A view from nowhere?
you fail to see the point; a fact is a fact is a fact; whether it’s a scientific fact depends on whether it can be quantified so as to establish its veracity and reproducibility. …And as I pointed out in the previous post the toxicity of a substance depends on the dose. No fact is scientific unless it can be quantified.
You are taking a particularly narrow view of science that probably limits the field to physics. I’ll let the neurobiologist speak for himself…
Harris:
" Many think that science is synonymous with mathematical modeling, or with immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn. There are many tools one must get in hand to think scientifically—ideas about cause and effect, respect for evidence and logical coherence, a dash of curiosity and intellectual honesty, the inclination to make falsifiable predictions, etc.—and many come long before one starts worrying about mathematical models or specific data."
this of course is more gobbledygook. Are you talking about statistics, precision or an infinite chain of theories, a theory about the theory of measurement?.. I reject what you said above as meaningless.
Okay, now I am wondering if you are worth trying to engage in conversation. How about giving me the benefit of the doubt as a non-idiot that doesn’t speak gobbledygook? If you can’t do that, there is no reason to proceed.
If you would substitute the word knowledge or truth for science I would agree with each of those statements, but if not, would conclude that they are made by people who have no real knowledge of how hard science–physics and its subdisciplines–are carried out.
Physics is of course not the only science.
I’ll give a short illustration here and then try to send by PM a copy of my post on the Magis discussion page. Consider the Olympic Games: events like the high jump, dashes, are measured–inches of the bar, time to break the tape,etc–so it’s easy to figure out who won; events which feature style like figure skating, diving, gymnastics are judged subjectively, so that who won or the measure of excellence is less easy to reproduce and to justify. Subjective choices are not scientific. Let’s go to another example: we construct a good/evil meter that can be calibrated by the user. Hitler calibrates his to say that death camps that kill Jews, priests, gypsies and homosexuals are good, rating a 10; I would (and hope you would also) calibrate this to be a 0. Indeed, looking at your comment in another post about “gang rape of orphans by priests” I don’t think I would want you to calibrate any of the good /evil meters that I would use. So there it is. without objective measurements your ideas about good/evil (or Hitler’s) won’t do for me. On the other hand if I measure a length to be 10.0 cm, you and Hitler can also do the same measurement.
I urge you to broaden your horizons and read some books about the philosophy of science written by those who have done science: Fr. Jaki or Bernard d’Espagnat
Here are some levels to set on your evil meter that are entirely objective. Let’s set the bottom of the device to represent the worst possible misery for all humans and animals and the top to be the highest possible degree of well-being.
Again, I’ll let Harris speak for him self on the issue of scientific objectivity:
“There is also much confusion about what it means to speak with scientific “objectivity.” As the philosopher John Searle once pointed out, there are two very different senses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.” The first relates to how we know (i.e. epistemology), the second to what there is to know (i.e. ontology). When we say that we are reasoning or speaking “objectively,” we mean that we are free of obvious bias, open to counter-arguments, cognizant of the relevant facts, etc. There is no impediment to our doing this with regard to subjective (i.e. first-person) facts. It is, for instance, true to say that I am experiencing tinnitus (ringing in my ears) at this moment. This is a subjective fact about me. I am not lying about it. I have been to an otologist and had the associated hearing loss in the upper frequencies in my right ear confirmed. There is simply no question that I can speak about my tinnitus in the spirit of scientific objectivity. And, no doubt, this experience must have some objective (third-person) correlates, like damage to my cochlea. Many people seem to think that because moral facts relate entirely to our experience (and are, therefore, ontologically “subjective”), all talk of morality must be “subjective” in the epistemological sense (i.e. biased, merely personal, etc.). This is simply untrue.”
