RE: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)

I do not think that a "subjective" kind of knowledge is less real than
the knowledge we acquire with purely physical devices. Tell me how we
know we have a self if such kind of knowledge is not purely subjective?
What purely physical device can detect my self?

Moorad

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:24 AM
To: asa; Murray Hogg
Subject: Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)

just because one's experience of God is personal it doesn't follow that
such knowledge is "subjective"

Sciences deal only with quantifiable entities and testable relationships
among quantities. Quantities in principle are accessible to everyone,
and that's a major reason why sciences make progress. Scientists don't
know how other scientists perceive quantities, just that the quantities
turn out to be the same for everyone. IOW, quantities are shareable.

Christians commonly "share" experiences of God and other
non-quantifiables, but "share" is in quotes because as they "share" they
don't have any sure way of knowing whether anyone grasps what they are
talking about. We believe God is real and exists independently of
ourselves, but any experience of him is fundamentally unshareable. Any
attempt to share the experience amounts only to making suggestions,
dropping hints. Our "sharing" may stimulate others to seek such
experience, but even if they succeed, they won't know whether their
experience is the same as ours. For these reasons knowledge from such
experience is subjective.

Don

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: Murray Hogg <mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au>

        To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

        Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:55 PM

        Subject: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)

        Hi Burgy,
        
        Very nice to have Polanyi introduced into the discussion!
        
        However, I hope you won't mind if I offer some minor correction
to your remarks on Personal Knowledge?
        
        Strictly Polanyi doesn't offer "Personal Knowledge" (PK) as a
third category alongside the objective and the subjective. Rather he
considers that it is a category which embraces these two and so goes
beyond the false "objective / subjective" dichotomy.
        
        In respects of science Polanyi would argue that there IS no
knowledge apart from that held by persons AND that this knowledge is not
so simply connected with "facts" (or "evidence") as the early twentieth
century positivists (Polanyi's major target) would have us suppose. In
the context of the current discussion, I'm pretty sure that Polanyi
would answer Moorad's question "what does "consider ALL the evidence"
mean?" with the obvious: "it depends who you ask". But this is not to
reduce the answer to a battle of subjective opinions as Polanyi would
argue that whether one gets an intelligent answer also depends upon who
you ask!
        
        Actually, Polanyi would appeal ultimately NOT to what people SAY
about science, but to how they DO science: and it's simply not a simple
case of accumulation of facts followed by construction and testing of
hypotheses - scientists are simply far too intuitive and creative for
that. And the reason? Because their science is firstly a personal
pursuit albeit guided by their understanding of and engagement with
public discourse and data. To appropriate an old adage in a somewhat
paradoxical way: Polanyi would insist that Science is an art and not a
science.
        
        Thus, to be a scientist is to possess a skill which, like being
able to play the violin, is not reducible to a set of rules which one
could follow without guidance and experience. One has to learn how to do
science by doing under the supervision of those who already know how to
do. It's exactly the same process one follows in order to learn how to
play the violin - the rare self-taught individual or child prodigy
notwithstanding.
        
        In respects of Christian faith, one can appropriate Polanyi's
epistemology to argue that just because one's experience of God is
personal it doesn't follow that such knowledge is "subjective" - after
all, individuals experience scientific evidence and discourse as
individuals so such experience is therefore "personal" by definition.
But we don't thereby relegate it entirely to the category of the
subjective. Now, to be clear, I don't say that Polanyi took this view of
Christian faith: he may well have considered that religious experience
in whole or in part has no connection with any objective external
reality. I only say that if one takes Christian faith as primarily
concerned with the knowledge of God, and if one takes God as an
objective external reality, then one will consider that Christian faith
is not (contra liberal theology) concerned primarily with the subjective
but with the objective.
        
        There are, of course, clearly elements of the subjective and
objective in the Christian's knowledge of God. And we are always
challenged to make a personal appropriation of objective truth, to offer
subjective response to objective reality, thus recognizing and embracing
"fact" in our own personal "experience". But it's precisely because both
fact and experience, the objective and subjective, are involved that any
schemata which contrasts these categories is necessarily inadequate.
        
        Returning to Polanyi, it's only in realizing that his notion of
PK is a claim about the individual's response to both objective "fact"
and subjective "experience" that one can see that his category of PK is
not a third option over against the objective and the subjective, but
one which embraces and even transcends them.
        
        The really interesting thing is that whilst this sort of
discussion has very interesting applications in religious epistemology,
Polanyi himself was primarily concerned with philosophy of science. He
formulated the idea of PK precisely because he saw no connection
whatever between the theory and the reality of scientific method as it
had been propounded by the early twentieth century positivists. So
Polanyi's notion of PK is PRIMARILY formulated in conscious reference to
the practice of the physical sciences. So, Burgy, your fear that PK is
concerned more with metaphysics than with science is actually entirely
contrary to Polanyi's stated purpose. Personal Knowledge is FIRST a
theory about scientific knowledge BEFORE it is a theory about any other
field of knowledge.
        
        Incidentally, Polanyi would dismiss the rule "consider ALL the
evidence" as hopelessly naive. He would point out that nobody has "all"
the evidence, most people don't even know where to look to find it, if
they did know where to look they probably wouldn't see it, and even if
they DID see "all" of it they would have no ability to bring it into any
sort of coherent relationship. THESE are the sort of abilities Polanyi
considered marked one's ability to do science: not some trifling ability
to jump to an obvious conclusion AFTER the data were identified,
collected and collated. Think, for instance, how OBVIOUS biological
evolution becomes AFTER a genius like Darwin actually does the REAL
scientific work of identifying, collecting and collating the relevant
data.
        
        Finally, If Polanyi were to criticise the data selection of YECs
I don't think it would be simply on the basis that they cherry-picking
the data - after all, being able to sort the relevant from the
irrelevant is one of the marks of good science in Polanyi's view. His
criticism (again, if he was to offer one) would rather be that they know
so little about science that they not only pick the wrong cherries, but
also that they have no grasp of what to do with them afterward. At
least, that is how I think Polanyi would structure a response IF,
indeed, he were to object to YEC.
        
        Blessings,
        Murray
        
        John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
> On 11/26/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>> Would someone tell me what "Consider All the evidence" really
means? What
>> evidence? How acquired?
>>
> A fair question. When I learned those two principles, I had
the
> concept that there were only two kinds of evidence, objective
and
> subjective, and that -- in science -- only the objective could
be
> used, IOW it had to be data that was available to anyone.
>
> Polyani has suggested a third category -- "personal
knowledge," which
> I am favorably disposed to. I certainly have personal
knowledge that
> is mine alone, not even in principle available to you, which I
must
> use in ascertaining the probable truth of some matters. But
that
> cannot be "science." Perhaps it is a form of metaphysics, but
that
> does not do the concept justice either.
>
> So "Consider all the evidence" means objective evidence. And
one "sin"
> of some scientists, including at least some YECs, is that they
don't
> follow that principle. Some people call that cherry-picking,
which is
> as good a term as any, I guess.
>
> As I understand Timeous, he seems to adhere to both
principles.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
        
        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 27 13:20:16 2008