the distinction of "objectivity" vs "subjectivity" is far from black and white. ... The consistency of scientifically derived results may be ... sufficient for use in our engagement of the world around us, but as others have observed, these "proofs" just amount to "sufficiently persuasive". Accordingly, though they too are in measure subjective....
The question is one of communication, not ultimate accuracy. Scientific results do not need to be correct in order to be communicated. But in order to be communicated unambiguously they need to be quantitative, and insofar as they are quantitative they are not subjective.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Armstrong<mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>
To: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)
I would extend your argument in the other direction as well. When we share experiences of God and other non-quantifiables, we are indeed essentially sharing our "witness" of them, since they are unshareable in any way analogous to science. Or is that distinction really the case?
One might argue (and others have argued) that the findings and results of science are not all that different in that they too are essentially shared experience as we describe the nature, behavior and quantity of particular aspects of our existence. What distinguishes these endeavors is not really coming to "know" things in any absolute sense, because we still fall short of being capable of accessing the underlying reality of what produces this subset of experiences and behaviors that we observe, enumerate, describe (share) and trust (individually and in community) in measure. There is a certain way that we can share such experience - e.g., reproducing satisfactorily an experimental result (recognizing this may not be the only way of validating mutual experience). But the distinction of "objectivity" vs "subjectivity" is far from black and white. It is more akin to a more-or-less agreed-upon sufficiently useful line of demarcation. The consistency of scientifically derived results may be mercifully and even providentially sufficient for use in our engagement of the world around us, but as others have observed, these "proofs" just amount to "sufficiently persuasive". Accordingly, though they too are in measure subjective, they have the particular attribute of being capable of becoming shared experience in a particular way, or set of ways, allowing us to assign a subset label of "objective".
Or so it seemeth to me... JimA [Friend of ASA]
Don Winterstein wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto: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 Fri Nov 28 08:35:18 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 28 2008 - 08:35:18 EST