Luc Turpin

In our own universe. It's all of the subjecitive going on about in this world that science can not adequatly explore because of the tools that it uses.

I agree that uncertainty is inherent and not evidence that objectivity is lacking; that noise exists; that the uncertainty principle exists. I am not in agreement though that I am demanding an ideal system. To the contrary, I believe this to not be possible. I believe that with non-existent "true" objectivity, we are still doing a great job in science. What I am questionning though is that with objective limitations, with even the checks and balances in science, with human bias given as a given and with the fact that reality also includes a subjective nature for which science cannot deal with, are we not premature in stating that fundamentally the world is materialistic and machanistic? Again the picture given by science of reality is good, but maybe incomplete and limited. I wish that someday, folks at this forum stop saying that I am against science; I am not! Just want to point out that there may be fault in saying based solely on science that the material world is all that we get. The material world exists, but something more may be lurking behind the curtain unattainable by science.

I responded that i agreed with the statement, but should have added except for the last sentence.

I realized after the fact that this could be misconstrued as opening a closed thread, so I will leave it at that. I do not believe it does so as it did not touch upon the main theme of the closed thread (just borrowed an element) nor did it relate to the reason for closing the thread. And I could have misinterpreted iNow's thought process. Please substantiate; the only thing coming to mind is that you may be aluding to the fact that no one is saying that true objectivity exists and the "mootness" of the topic. But, I had to start somewhere and chose the beginning. The only "evidence" that I can bring to the table is that some, not many, share my assertion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/why-materialism-is-false-and-why-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-mind/5DC675B901E2F68E82643B88EE468EAE And I want to be cautious here, because I am reitroducing the topic of mind; so I will not go beyond this. Yes, to the question "Does true objectivity exist in science?" I might be mistaken, but the kind of "hard" evidence that you are requesting is, well, hard to find for a debate about a broad theme such as objectivity in science. Again, the only thing that I can bring to the table are some that share my same concern. And does it not make a difference that I am in philosophy rather than a pure science thread? You seem to be asking that I deal with this contention of mine as if it were planets revolving around stars, which it is not. I can only bring what others think about the subject matter. If this is insufficient than I shall cease and desist. I am all fine with what you are saying. In fact, you know more than me in this area. But, I am still itching to ask you this: did the worlview come first then science built around a worlview or was it science through all of the experimentation done that brought about the conclusion that the world was materialist and mechanistic? Notwitstanding what is being said above in your post, is it still possible that a particular worldview is tainting the process? I am entirely in agreement with your statement. No I cannot, because other worlviews than a materialst one are rarely being considered in science. I am only stating that "true" objectivity does not exist. I am not saying that scientific realism is wrong. In fact I agree with it. Again, what science has uncovered about reality is the best that we have so far. Beyond objectivity, my contention, and it is only a contention that I cannot prove is that the camel might have been brought to the materialist water hole rather than the camel finding it himself. I cannot prove my contention, but can we really prove the opposite? That it found water by itself? I agree that this might be very naive of me askiing, but I guess sometimes stupid questions are revealing about the nature of science. Then sorry, I misunderstood. Entirely agree with your statement and with @CharonY on this matter. This section of your quote forced me to think hard as you were showing a possible contradiction of mine in asserting that science is good, but objectivity might not be under control. I will respond by saying that Individually, each science experiment is sound. It is when all of those are put together to claim that we live a materialist-mechanistic world that objectivity might be missing. Appologies to you studiot for I am trying to discuss as best as I can, and maybe I am not up to the task. I am not the type to pontificate. I am trying my best with the time available to me and the number of responses that I am getting. I get lazy sometimes. I went back to your original post and my response and thought that I at least responded to your main points. Please show me where I missed something? Science gives a good picture of reality, but a limited one!

True objectivity does not exist according to all of the authors that I have consulted. None said that it existed. I have tried very hard to find a single article that posits for true objectivity, but have found none. Most articles that I posted present opposite views on certain positions, but the conclusion or conscensus is always the same, it does not exist. On measurement "We therefore need to ask whether the results of scientific measurements and experiments can be aperspectival. In an important debate in the 1980s and 1990s some commentators answered that question with a resounding “no”, which was then rebutted by others. The debate concerns the so-called “experimenter’s regress” (Collins 1985). Collins, a prominent sociologist of science, claims that in order to know whether an experimental result is correct, one first needs to know whether the apparatus producing the result is reliable. But one doesn’t know whether the apparatus is reliable unless one knows that it produces correct results in the first place and so on and so on ad infinitum." "Collins argues that the circle is eventually broken not by the “facts” themselves but rather by factors having to do with the scientist’s career, the social and cognitive interests of his community, and the expected fruitfulness for future work. It is important to note that in Collins’s view these factors do not necessarily make scientific results arbitrary. But what he does argue is that the experimental results do not represent the world according to the absolute conception. Rather, they are produced jointly by the world, scientific apparatuses, and the psychological and sociological factors mentioned above. The facts and phenomena of science are therefore necessarily perspectival." From here and I can dig for more on this matter I am not couching my position in terms of "true" vs "false", but that "true" and "false" are false. Its in the shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life. Where we differ is that you state that it is under control and I say that I am not so sure about that. Just saying at this point in time that "true" objectivity and no objectivity do not exist, but that inded there are many shades of grey. If statistical allowance is required to compensate for the fact that no two experiments are ever exaclty the same speaks to my point that even measurement is not 'true" objectivity. 1- Tried very hard, but did not find any one stipulating that "true" objectivity exists. If anyone finds any, please bring them to the discussion. 2- Yes, the question of if there is "true" objectivity is moot, but by how much science is in-objective is not. My contention is that the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity 3- iNow 4- I will consider it This process takes care of biases between models, but what about those having divergent worldviews?

Science and Objectivity Note: I have consulted forum guidelines and believe the following to be compliant! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Does true objectivity exist in science? Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe. I have tried to be as objective as possible on this topic by consulting many references on the matter. To my surprise, none seem to claim that “view from nowhere” objectivity truly exists. Even in physics, it is not pure. But, is objectivity sufficiently objective to give us a general appreciation of reality, most authors that I have consulted think so, while I and a minority of others remain doubtful. Reading all of the references would make for a better discussion, but here are a few highlights. The first one is a very good summary of the whole debate. “If what is so great about science is its objectivity, then objectivity should be worth defending. The close examinations of scientific practice that philosophers of science have undertaken in the past fifty years have shown, however, that several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ “Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn's analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined.[5] When observational data arises which appears to contradict or falsify a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm historically have not immediately rejected it, as Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do. Instead they have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm. Through ad hoc variations to the theory and sympathetic interpretation of the data, supporting scientists will resolve the apparent conundrum. In extreme cases, they may ignore the data altogether. Thus, the failure of a scientific paradigm will go into crisis when a significant portion of scientists working in the field lose confidence in it. The corollary of this observation is that a paradigm is contingent on the social order amongst scientists at the time it gains ascendancy.[5] Kuhn's theory has been criticised by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Alan Sokal as presenting a relativist view of scientific progress.[6][7]” “In Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective (1988), Donna Haraway argues that objectivity in science and philosophy is traditionally understood as a kind of disembodied and transcendent "conquering gaze from nowhere."[8]: 581  She argues that this kind of objectivity, in which the subject is split apart and distanced from the object, is an impossible "illusion, a god trick."[8]: 583–587  She demands a re-thinking of objectivity in such a way that, while still striving for "faithful accounts of the real world,"[8]: 579  we must also acknowledge our perspective within the world. She calls this new kind of knowledge-making "situated knowledges." Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see."[8]: 581–583  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807 “The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.” – The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Scientific Objectivity” “There is no such thing as objectivity. We are all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them.” ― Bones, “The Doctor in the Photo” “All the evidence points in the opposite direction: every true description is essentially contextual.” https://philarchive.org/archive/HALODI-2 “But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.” https://theconversation.com/quantum-physics-our-study-suggests-objective-reality-doesnt-exist-126805 Many people praise physics for being an “objective” science. In “inferior” sciences like sociology, there is seldom any overall consensus on theories, and things are more open to subjective interpretation. But physics on the other hand is the mature man of the sciences, as it is immune to human biases. After all, it relies on cold hard facts — but how true is that? We often think of physics as a veracious equation handed to us from the sky, but how objective is physics, really? In today’s article, we’ll talk about how the history of physics is riddled with many biases and fallacies that still exist to this day. https://medium.com/@thisscience1/how-objective-is-physics-4072ae22d207 “Summary: Physics, by which I mean models of how reality works at the most fundamental level, is a subjective endeavor. Physics seems to be objective, but that's because there's high intersubjective consensus about which models best explain and predict reality. Rounding this off to objective causes confusion, and the point generalizes for all seemingly objective things.” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CEXxRcCcWmuEikgvg/physics-is-ultimately-subjective I cast a shadow on objectivity, on reality garnered from this objectivity, on science and its presumed immunity to subjectivity and the reception of ideas brought about by myself to this forum.

For plants, but applicable to ants as well. "Evidence suggests that plants can behave intelligently by exhibiting the ability to learn, make associations between environmental cues, engage in complex decisions about resource acquisition, memorize, and adapt in flexible ways. However, plant intelligence is a disputed concept in the scientific community. Reasons for lack of consensus can be traced back to the history of Western philosophy, interpretation of terminology, and due to plants lacking neurons and a central nervous system. Plant intelligence thus constitutes a novel paradigm in the plant sciences. Therefore, the perspectives of scientists in plant-related disciplines need to be investigated in order to gain insight into the current state and future development of this concept." "Our findings show that respondents’ personal belief systems (emphasis mine) and the frequency of taking into account other types of knowledge, such as traditional knowledge, in their own field(s) of study, were associated with their opinions of plant intelligence. Meanwhile, respondents’ professional expertise, background (discipline), or familiarity with evidence provided on plant intelligence did not affect their opinions." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9153103/ Did Nigel tell you that? I am serious though! If observation leads us to that then, so be it. It is not my intention though and we are far-far away from demonstrating that there's a magic spark of intelligence. How about intelligence possibly being part of the universe as is matter? Blending it into the fabric of the universe could be helpful in some other areas of scientific investigations. I admit that it is pure speculation on my part and that the idea has issues of it own to contend with. Just giving it up as an example. My readings seem to suggest that ant intelligence is far more complex than current AI and not functionning on the same operating system.

Notwithstanding my gregarious way of framing things, why is observation on ant intelligence not treated in the same way nor receiving the same level of objectivity as in say this?

Got picked off too by rock salt when young while trying to raid a garden for a second consecutive night.

A good summary of the debate over ant intelligence. A five-minute read. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/ "How intelligent are animals? Despite centuries of effort by philosophers, psychologists and biologists, the question remains unanswered" - so why did we jump to the conclusion that they were not! Because, we interpreted observation and data based on a set belief system. And, at what length do we go to fit observation into our belief system? "Simon explains that the complexity observed in the behavior is not necessarily in the ant, but in the interaction between the ant and the surrounding complex environment." Really? Then the data piles up and buries the whole thing. We should be doing more observing and less interpreting through a specific tint of coloured glasses. And, how much more complexity will be required to make it too hard to contemplate that ants can only be mindless cogs in the machine? Words and arguments can only go so far in placating away other possible venues of ant intelligence! Agree on the former and beg to differ on the latter.

Liked your post. However, I beg to differ on some of the answers: 1. Maybe. 2. Yes, but on the other side as well, which might make it unavoidable at one point 3. Depends on what? (cannot endlessly add robots in response to increasing complexity; again, at one point, we may need to explore other avenues) 4. Former 5. We may never know. 6. Machination (point 4) requires evil intentions, which was not my contention. Wrong choice of word. Don't tell iNow that we are using a numbering system! 😊

No bollox there. Humility and taking a step back have been required on your part, intended or not, to arrive at your statement. Not many do that. and still agree with your statement

I agree with the above indicated statement. Humility is good. So is pausing and taking a step back to take in the view.

Are cracks appearing in the foundation? Is evidence piling up? How many little robots is too many? Fact or machination? Was the emperor even wearing any clothing? Correction: machination without the evil end;

Wanted to make myself useful. You are right; it does not prove intention of "purpose" but one of top of the other makes it a bit easier to acknowledge that it might. But, they nonetheless are building a pretty awsome castle. Had a big laugh out of it. You are right, I wil post better from now on!

How about this one? An ant that selectively amputates the infected limbs of wounded sisters https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1049744 or this one? Ants fight pathogenic fungi with a compound from bacteria https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Ants-fight-pathogenic-fungi-compound/99/i3 fascinating! Chocolate is a constituent of chocolate milk. There is no intention there until I want one. when reducing it to an essential component such as carbohydrate-driven release of metapleural secretion, do we not remove it from its context, which was possibly a lowly ant trying to heal another fellow ant? how about the other examples that I just provided?. I am sure that we can also find another crucial compound, but the fact remains that it seems as if someone is trying to help another. Unrelated to the topic at hand, but I thought that you might be interested. Bacteria encode hidden genes outside their genome--do we? | ScienceDaily

1- Not shorter, because I would have had to do a summary of the summary; lazy bugger I am😊 wanted also to post the full essence of the summary 2- not having these kinds of observations, and there is more and more of these uncovered each day, would make it much more easier to promote the autonoma model, but they are there and they must be considered 3- agree, colourful language 4- was aware of the paper; they are still making a diagnostic

Thank you; now I know more about the role of philosophy. My opposite stance from yours might have made you come up with this substantive text. It feels to me that, sometimes, I am bringing fresh water to the argumentative well, but maybe not. Is the ant thing that I just posted of value, or not? Is my statement that the conclusion is given before the arguments begin, not in need of at least some reflection? In that sense, I still remain somewhat sceptical that bad habits of thoughts are always being dismantled by philosophy. The text that you referenced gave me the impression that old habits die hard. I felt being lead to an intended outcome. The ideas that I spawn do not come from nowhere, but somewhere (e.g. another ideological stand point cultivated by countless hours of reading). Is that a good science foundation, most probably not, but it brings a different perspective, which is not a bad thing. I am either a rough-cut diamond or a piece of charcoal.

Nigel, the little devil 😊👿 A bit more on ants - hope that it is not considered too long Ants, Individual and Colony, Superorganism, Leadership, and Fire Ants Like bees, ants are often considered to be mindless cogs in a machine—the hive, or colony—that somehow possesses its own intelligence. This kind of intelligent society of insects has been called a “superorganism;” the internet would probably also qualify for this. Mathematical scientists have looked for self-organizing principles whereby each ant passes on information to the next. These theories assume that ants function like a computer, through rapid interactions and distributed processing. Yet this does not explain the variety and intelligence of their response. Perhaps—once again—we are considering an animal to be a computer, rather than looking at the unique intelligence it demonstrates. From recent research it is certainly possible that individual ants possess intelligence as well as some remarkable group behavior. Adjusting Responses Recently, it was shown that ants are able to perceive threats of varying degrees and adjust their responses—e.g. how much energy to expend, or how aggressive to be—accordingly. Ants are noted to respond rapidly to new circumstances. For instance, if food is discovered, more ants will be sent to this location within minutes. If the nest is damaged, many workers will swarm to fix it immediately. This process involves more than just touching each other, more than a computer calculation: it requires the knowledge that the hive has to be repaired and the specific materials that are necessary. A very recent study has shown that individual ants can learn to use completely novel information in the form of magnetic and vibrational information using landmarks of navigation back to a nest. In other words, ants are able to evaluate a situation and respond appropriately. Individual Leadership To determine a new location for the hive, ants undergo a competition, which is similar to the bee’s waggle dance described in a previous post. Individuals ants each advertise a variety of potential sites with some ants choosing the same site. When a quorum is reached for a specific site, the vote is concluded; all the ants return to the nest to begin carrying worker ants, young ants, and the queen to the new site. Very recent research has shown that when separated from their hive, ants take advice from their more experienced individual brethren, scout ants who had memorized other good locations, about the rebuilding of a new home. It appears that ants are led by the smartest of the bunch, not by a mysterious “hive intelligence.” Ant Doctors Some ants that farm fungus for food have been shown to use multiple antibiotics to kill weeds, and inhibit microbes. This has been likened to doctors using multiple antibiotics for resistant infections in humans. Ants on Fire But, perhaps, one of the most remarkable tricks of the insect kingdom belongs to the fire ants. In experiments, when these ants are thrown into water, they quickly use their claws and jaws to grip the feet of other ants, forming a woven lattice of bodies that is completely water-resistant: a living raft. Despite the tightness of the fit, the ants position in the rafts allows each one to breath trapped air. These rafts, which can remain intact for long periods of time, allow the ants to safely traverse water or escape floods. The Individual in Society It has yet to be shown how these types of behaviors can be pre-programmed. Ants clearly act as individuals and exhibit leadership. But, groups of ants can do remarkable feats together such as the fire ant raft. The question of the intelligence of the hive versus the individual remains unanswered. If there is a type of intelligence in the aggregation of organisms, perhaps it is worth asking: What kind of superorganism are humans becoming, especially with the advancement of the Internet?

They follow the former, which makes them more objective than us.

Why is presenting a different point of view always qualified as spewing out thoughts? I read it carefully and found that facts and thoughts were woven in a way to attain an unstated goal, that all is an illusion. I had the same impression while reading the Blind Watchmaker; the reader being set up for the “obvious”. And I reiterate that mind was used to make the determination that all is an illusion. A conversation with someone that has a different perspective is richer than one with same views. Read it again with a view of scepticism and you might also wonder if it is not a bit too fabricated. It is your prerogative to ignore me. I am not “like minded”, a virtue or a fault? I do not agree that all is an illusion and all is for nothing, what’s wrong with that? Follow the logic where it goes or bring the logic to where I want it to go

Agree with first two, not sure about third one I do not deny what you say, but do express skepticism. I thought I was presenting arguments, but maybe not. I need to better frame my line of reasoning

Delusion of non-design was my banner; not gainsaying; it's the other side of the coin, which is rarely explored; notwithstanding, will leave it to rest as you so desire. The discussion could have been revealing.

Illusion-of-design concept or delusion-of-non-design concept? Not considering for even an instant the latter is a serious lapse of objectivity that, I contend, is prevalent in science. Did most of us think about both before deciding which one was right? Did most of us try to falsify the former before discarding the latter? Thoughts mostly taken from the reflections part of the discourse. Take a big step back and you might see the self-feeding perpetual loops. A figment of my imagination? Maybe! Maybe not! You only can find out for yourself. Self-perpetuating loops are fun, because you just have to advocate them without having to defend them. Just say perpetual loops often enough and problems go away. Are facts leading to interpretation or facts lead to interpretation? Is discourse leading to interpretation or discourse lead to interpretation? No person is without beliefs. While reading the ant fugue I had the same feeling as when I read the Blind Watchmaker I am either a miserable idiot with nothing constructive to do or on to something!

Read the ant fugue in almost its entirety; need to digest, but here are my initial thoughts. We like deconstructing and reconstructing things; it gives us the impression of knowledge, power and control. We will go to any length of discourse to deconstruct and reconstruct it in a way that suits our worldview. "put starkly, the notion that a thought can influence the path of an electron...." don't know about electrons, but a thought changes the physical brain; that is known The brain is no longer only about synapses and chemicals; It is much-much more complex than that and you would need a wind chime of ridiculous complexity to even scratch the surface of the level of complexity encountered in the brain; but try hard you will to make it "fit". The "I" exists and it is not a self-reinforcing-perpetuating loop. Liked a lot reading it as it reinforced the notion of how entrapped science and philosophy are in their stated mindset. In fact both are caught in self-perpetuating loops I thought that I was mostly wrong in my thinking about the world; after reading it, I might be more right than wrong! Take a step back; you might see what is really going on. The facts are good; the interpretation is skewered. What a bunch of messed-up puppies we all are!