Subjectivity vs. objectivity in scientific practice essay

With this paper the consequence of a social split among objective and subjective will be examined and the analysis on the results of examination will be given. Then some forms of conscience that this split has caused will be considered. Eventually, it will be proved that the discussed conscience represents the copulative passage-way that leads to the issue of objective and subjective sameness. Objectivity v. subjectivity was studied long ago in a book by I. Scheffler.

Then it was forgotten but nowadays it is considered again from the new point of view. The truth is normally divided in the society into emotional and logical types. As young people live in the social environment that includes family and school, it is possible for them to get a solid level of common sense without making any efforts from their side. Moreover, it is natural that the respect for institutions, beliefs and customs, role models is gained from the society that they live in.

But since this development of mind is obtained from the influence of others, people usually terminate to learn anything as soon as pressure is removed. After they graduate they rest on oars, accept the current mental splits and start “to live”. One should give more attention to the issues that are used to be accepted so easily. A continual split between subjective and objective that is spread within the whole society looks like the barrier that separate the chill nature of ‘truth” from the hearty outside of common sense.

Till this boundary remains entire the sensitive observer will stay guarded on the one side of truth, and chilly on the other. The mental confusion could be decreased if every member of the society has equal mental freeze as at this every person will know for sure the type if perceiver that should be applied. (Scheffler 1962) A solid level of private comfort can be achieved by such unity of thought. It occurs due to the fact that split between subjective and objective razes the ability of Perceiver to grasp sameness and in this way it blitzes undesirable conscience or fault.

One could ask how. It is well known that no information of the Perceiver can get over the threshold of doubt and remain entire. Two facts can not exist together because one will take up the other. If the information of the Perceiver is not able to get over the threshold, then definitely the conscience can not do this as well as correlation between effect and originates conscious of a Perceiver. Discrepancy is hence not sensed, persuasion is therefore not initiated.

The human intelligence can virtually endure spacious incompatibility of subjective and objective thought without plead guilty. (Scheffler 1982) The barrier between objective and subjective makes it possible for “modern man” to use such oxymorons as pretty ugly, tragic comedy, rolling stops and another without gilt. In each oxymoron there is an absolute contrast between destroying puerility of the subjective component and objective medium that is presented in the advanced state.

“Israel Scheffler fears what he claims would be the breakdown of observational community and of the community of meaning by the so-called subjectivist attacks from, for instance, Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn (although these authors probably would not see them as such). In the argument, science and its procedures turn out to be scientific theorizing and its theoretical procedures. Their well known virtues are extolled: impartiality, detachment, the establishment of standards, testing, responsibility and so on. ” (Creative Intelligence)

In his book Science and Subjectivity, Israel Scheffler improved a persistently objectivist, however non-positivist, explanation of the typical view of science. Standard explanation says that facts provide the experiential data which make up observational laws. The laws are, accordingly, related and clarified by academic laws. “When one [theoretical] hypothesis is superseded by another, the genuine facts it had purported to account for are not inevitably lost; they are typically passed on to its successor, which conserves them as it reaches out to embrace additional facts.

” (Scheffler, 1967/1982, p. 9). The fight of the researchers against theories forming part of the background of science is studied by Thomas Kuhn, the author of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, 1962. Scientific revolutions happen when what Thomas calls a paradigm is moved. Paradigms, in this background, are generally recognized logical achievements that some time creates model problems and resolutions to a society of practitioners. Scientist represents usual scientific investigation not as radical but as strengthen, as “paradigm-based rather than paradigm-shifting.

” (Kuhn 1962) However science is now nearly identical with improvement, as he says. The effect of triumphant creative work is the improvement. Scientists apply creative intellect, if they are consolidating or making the paradigms of their society move. While the value of the knowledge of creative intellect is never confined to scientific societies it is proper to state here that it would allow a scientist to find out fresh methods with wider revelation and to choose the most productive ones without difficulty.

It could be done by making him familiar with the condition in which he can be free of paradigms and provide him with the opportunity to draw upon the unlimited source of mental power. Kuhn continue his study by stating that the objective reality in question, as the contemporary science describes, allows individual to create a theory of atoms, cells, chemical compounds, particles, organs and organisms and then to talk about how organs are embedded in societies give raise to subject realities of the individuals.

But this very issue is more complex than the derivation objective reality from subjective. Kuhn in his Postscript focuses on the importance of “values” such as simplicity, explanatory power, accuracy that are usually shared by researchers. On the other hand, Kuhn states that these values are used by different investigators in a different way. A great number of philosophers have a lot of controversies on the question of if there is a worldwide scientific technique, i. e. , a set of methods for revealing or testing scientific hypotheses.

These methods are general because they were created for all sciences. In his original work, Kuhn little by little sets up ‘paradigm’ in order to displace the more general philosophical application of ‘theory’. In reply to charges of imprecision and even prevarication in his application of the word ‘paradigm’, Kuhn now wants to replace the term, ‘disciplinary matrix’: “As currently used in philosophy of science … ‘theory’ connotes a structure far more limited in nature and scope than the one required here.

Until the term can be freed from its current implications, it will avoid confusion to adopt another. For present purposes I suggest ‘disciplinary matrix’: ‘disciplinary’ because it refers to the common possession of the practitioners of a particular discipline; ‘matrix’ because it is composed of ordered elements of various sorts, each requiring further specification. ” (p. 182) He then distinguishes “four components of a disciplinary matrix: symbolic generalizations, metaphysical presumptions, values, and exemplars.

” (Kuhn 1962) The first three can be met in the philosophical writing. Kuhn’s fourth component is the example is the most attractive element, particularly in light of rejection of the usual assumption that theories and laws define the empirical essence of science. Kuhn’s statement is striking at first: (p. 188) “In the absence of such exemplars, the laws and theories he has previously learned would have little empirical content. ” How do examples define observed content? As an instance:

“Galileo found that a ball rolling down an incline acquires just enough velocity to return it to the same vertical height on a second incline of any slope, and learned to see that experimental situation as like the pendulum with a point-mass for a bob. Huygens then solved the problem of the center of oscillation of a physical pendulum by imagining that the extended body of the latter was composed of Galilean point-pendula, the bonds between which could be instantaneously released at any point in the swing. … Finally, Daniel Bernoulli discovered how to make the flow of water from an orifice resemble Huygens’ pendulum.

… The three problems in the example, all of them exemplars for eighteenth-century mechanicians, deploy only one law of nature. Known as the Principle of vis viva, it was usually stated as: ‘Actual descent equals potential ascent. ’” (pp. 190-91) It was mentioned above that the mental life originates from an internal structure. This structure includes 4 main components or rather to say mental strategies. The first two work with trust and structure and the other two – with essence and sense. Without structure life can go up and without feeling it can dry up.

However the cleavage that exists between subjective and objective detaches structure from feeling. The objective retains structure by restraining feeling, whereas the subjective defends feeling by enchanting structure. In order to avoid fault, all of this is closed up strongly in place by firm collective. This signifies, among other things, that mental life must infringe and virtually raze the split between subjective and objective to maintain itself. From its side, society must not only support but also not undergo the schism. How these conflicting requirements are handled? Technology helps.

One person can analyze the instrument objectively and the other will use subjective method. The tool of one man is the toy for another one. Such approach establishes an outer link between subjective and objective thought. The consumer uses the object as a basis for subjective sensations while this object was built by the factory with outer structure. The internal split between subjective and objective is still entire. For instance, science is mainly based on objective thought. But the principles of science led to the use of new technologies. The least allow to create devices such as computers, stereos etc.

These pocket-sized gadgets that are born under the pressure of objective are used for our entertainments in the subjective sphere. One cannot imagine that the average juvenile will consider a personal computer as an implement of research. Computer looks like a toy for him and he uses computer for playing games. The progress can act in a reverse way. It was always supposed that human thought is the component of the sphere of the objective. But these very thoughts turned to be the subject for the objective research after brain imaging technology developed. The history of western civilization demonstrates that this mixing is rather dangerous.

From one side people would like to have a mental life and therefore they constantly develop new technologies that will allow them to master the split between objective and subjective. On the other hand one desires to avoid triggering feelings of private disparity. Consequently the mental splits between objective and subjective are reinforced. Those who call the faultiness that penetrates our existence in question or discus it are suppressed. The present post is intellectual by its nature as it plays at the border between brief psychological essay and blog entry.

It dispatches a small portion of the psychological train of thought. Such issues as free will and the emersion of notions of self, reality and will in the infant’s mind are involved in that train of thought. Cognitive dynamics and conceptual structures epigenesist in the toddler and infant mind is widespread today because in Novamente AI project the work is oriented towards demonstration of Novamente progress through the earlier of Jean Piaget’s stages of child cognitive development. But in this paper the attention will be given to another issue. The connection is amid subjective and objective reality.

(Feibleman) One of the motivations to be absorbed in the subject is the fact that it was understood that it is wise firstly to clearly discuss the issue and then enter into issues of will and consciousness. Often when the theory of consciousness is discussed in the society, the discussion disperses because people suppose that subjective experiential reality is primary. The other group of people considers subjective experimental reality as primary. Whereas author of this paper considers that a condition for intelligent discuss is the perception that neither of these two perspectives is primary.

Each of the perspectives has its own convincingness and each gives birth to the other in a certain manner. There are a couple ways to consider the world. One can look at the objective world as it is considered by society and science to be fundamental. Subjective world of the individuals can be considered in the realm that it is produced by physical systems of individuals incut within physical reality. The other way is to look at subjective world of the individual and consider it to me primary one. Objective reality is created by mind that has experience with an aim to make use of individual experience.

(Feibleman) It is considered that both of the views are interesting and valid. They are used in certain cases and they do not contravene each other as one can say objective reality contains subjective reality and vice versa. This type of circularity is studied in the theory of non-well-founded sets as a completely steady in terms of mathematics and reason. This theory demonstrates that this type of circularity is absolutely steadfast in terms of mathematics and logic. Barwise and Etchemendy’s work “The Liar” provides a solid showing of this type of set theory that is the semi technical readership oriented.