Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I think what duszek is saying is a vital aspiration for all scientists to have. And that is why we have peer review, which can uncover a failure of this kind.
What we can never do is remove the interests (financial and prestigious), that gathered to bring the study or research into being.
Oh yeah I know what he meant, I just don't see how it is going to happen. We are human, with all that entails all we can hope is that after time and iteration we rule out more subjectivity- that would make something more objective. That is all we can do.
How is intersubjectivity possible without qualia? If I do not hear what you say (hearing is different than a pattern of sound waves. Similarily, my experience of red may be caused by photons of a particular wave length. However, I do not experience a particular wave length. I experience red) how can you communicate your ideas?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I think what duszek is saying is a vital aspiration for all scientists to have. And that is why we have peer review, which can uncover a failure of this kind.
What we can never do is remove the interests (financial and prestigious), that gathered to bring the study or research into being.
Oh yeah I know what he meant, I just don't see how it is going to happen. We are human, with all that entails all we can hope is that after time and iteration we rule out more subjectivity- that would make something more objective. That is all we can do.
Well it sort of does happen.
It happens in the sense that science does come up with reliable information about nature that is daily applied to a range of devices and solutions for diseases, technical problems... etc..
If they are 'human oriented' understandings, rather than peri-human objectivity then maybe that is not so much a problem as humans need to understand the universe from a human scale.
We are never going to get completely away from ourselves, but then what would that look like if we were to so so?
raw_thought wrote:How is intersubjectivity possible without qualia? If I do not hear what you say (hearing is different than a pattern of sound waves. Similarily, my experience of red may be caused by photons of a particular wave length. However, I do not experience a particular wave length. I experience red) how can you communicate your ideas?
The point is that we experience things through qualia, but as humans are basically the same thing. It is higly likely that your qualia is much the same as mine. But even if they are not, the fact that we can agree about the colour of an object reduces the concept of qualia to a interesting philosophical problem, as we are still on the same playing field in terms of our inter-subjective (or objective if you prefer) understanding of the universe.
When talking about the 'real world' , qualia are not relevant.
Even when we know that people experience the spectrum differently (colour blindness) we can still quantify and qualify those differences. That is what being objective is.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I think what duszek is saying is a vital aspiration for all scientists to have. And that is why we have peer review, which can uncover a failure of this kind.
What we can never do is remove the interests (financial and prestigious), that gathered to bring the study or research into being.
Oh yeah I know what he meant, I just don't see how it is going to happen. We are human, with all that entails all we can hope is that after time and iteration we rule out more subjectivity- that would make something more objective. That is all we can do.
Well it sort of does happen.
It happens in the sense that science does come up with reliable information about nature that is daily applied to a range of devices and solutions for diseases, technical problems... etc..
If they are 'human oriented' understandings, rather than peri-human objectivity then maybe that is not so much a problem as humans need to understand the universe from a human scale.
We are never going to get completely away from ourselves, but then what would that look like if we were to so so?
True, it could be more efficient though I think, which is where perhaps philosophy comes in..?
Getting away from being human is of course impossible, getting away from anything you intrinsically are is of course. But philosophy I think can at least tell us where we are going wrong. Attacking science is perhaps one way to go about it, attacking the source, perhaps better.
