Do you know how pissed off I am?
As it happens, I am at this very moment pissed off enough to say, "intersubjective verifiability is the core of the empirical sciences" -- say it and mean it!
That's how pissed off I am.
I have just come from a kerfuffle. Someone (the nerve of that person! The Nerve!) at this very moment is -- despite my protests -- asserting that "objectivity is the core of the empirical sciences". And they are saying it on the internet -- on the internet, where impressionable children might see it and thus have warped their tender, young epistemologies!
Please allow me to quote the fool: "The basis for science is objectivity, yet the foundational premise for science is based on an assumption (existence of objects)."
DOESN'T ANYONE THINK THROUGH THEIR TERMS THESE DAYS?
I humbly apologize if the sheer emotional violence of my response to that person has caused you to reach for the smelling salts. I realize I am a man of passions. Strong passions. And that sometimes my passions might be a tad overwhelming, especially when an epistemology is involved. But please bear with me while I say this: It is a myth -- it is only a myth -- that in order to do science I must believe in an objective reality. I am, of course, permitted to believe in an objective reality. But my belief in an objective reality is not necessary because I can do science even if I do not believe in an objective reality.
I myself favor throwing the concept of objectivity out the door. We don't need it. It is unnecessary baggage, and it reeks of the Middle Ages. Moreover, the concept of objectivity is quite easily and very soundly replaced by the concept of intersubjective verifiability.
All of us intersubjectively verify things -- even if we do not call it "intersubjective verification". Someone tells us something is true and we say, "Show me!" In a nutshell, that's the principle behind intersubjective verification.
Suppose I say to you, "It is snowing outside." You look out the window, see snow, and say, "So it is!" You have just intersubjectively verified my statement, "It is snowing outside."
Again, you say to me, "If you run an electric spark through a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, the mixture will explode, after which, you will be left with some water." I don't believe you. So I experiment by running an electric spark through a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. The mixture explodes, after which I notice some water. I have just intersubjectively verified your claim.
Imagine thousands of people do the same experiment and almost all of them get significantly the same results. Would we not have considerable evidence -- a weight of evidence -- that we can rely on a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water when a spark is passed through it? I think so. But have we in any way demonstrated there is some objective world out there -- a world separate from our awareness -- in which hydrogen and oxygen are real things that produce real water when a real spark is passed through them?
Strictly speaking, we have not.
Yet -- and this has a certain beauty to it -- we don't need to. We do not need to figure out with absolute certainty what the ultimate nature of reality is before we can arrive at reliable facts through processes of intersubjective verification. For example, we can discover that a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen reliably produces water when a spark is passed through it without ever needing to speculate about metaphysics.
In short, science does not crucially rest upon the metaphysical notion that objects really exist.
So take that, Mr. Internet-Child-Corrupting-"The-Basis-For-Science-Is-Objectivity"-Poo-Poo-Head-Man!
Once again, I must apologize to you, my dear readers, on the chance that my strong, vigorous language has caused you to reach for your smelling salts.
If objects seem to exist, they do exist. As long as the double blind, placebo controlled studies prove that the potion works, and thus can be sold to recoup the research & development costs, who cares whether the method is said to involve 'objectivity' or 'intrasubject verifiability?'
ReplyDeleteHere, have a shiny new Internet. I award it to you for this post. Well said, sir!
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am not up on the nuances of objectivity, so it seems like you are coming down a little hard on it to me.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what you say about intersubjective verifiability is spot on. Great post!
@ Michael: Thank you so much for your kind words!
ReplyDelete@The Wise Fool: Now that I've had a little time to cool off, I will grant that I have "come down a little hard" on objectivity.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, the notion that objects exist, although impossible to prove, is a great shorthand way to think about the world. That is, it is far easier to think "my chair objectively exists", than it is to think of the thousand and one ways in which I (and others) reliably interact with my chair. In other words, the easy thing to do, Wise Fool, is to simply assume there are objects. It almost always works when you do that, and there are almost never any penalties when you do that.
The second thing I should mention here is that I totally goofed when writing my post. I did not spell out, as I should have spelled out, what the guy who said science is based on objects was up to.
Basically, the guy was trying to set the stage for the argument there is no real difference between a truth-claim in science and a truth-claim in religion.
Specifically, he wanted to argue that (1) ultimately we have no grounds for believing in the existence of objects except faith; that (2) science necessarily assumes objects exist; and that therefore, science relies on faith (just like religion relies on faith).
Presumably, he would have then gone on to argue that, say, my acceptance of evolution, and his belief Jesus rose from the dead, are logically equal propositions since both science and religion depend on faith.
I was trying to head him off by undermining his second premiss.
Naturally, I screwed up when writing my post by failing to even hint at the reason the guy was saying "science depends on the notion that objects exist."
@ Garnet: Methinks you have a pragmatic bent! That is, "If objects seem to exist, they do exist" strikes me as a pretty pragmatic statement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that, for the most part, it doesn't matter much whether one thinks of his or her world in terms of objectivity or in terms of intersubjective verifiability.
Just as Newton's physics and Einstein's physics will give you almost the same exact results when, say, calculating the orbit of the moon, the notions of objectivity and intersubjective verifiability quite often amount in practice to almost the same thing.
Perhaps the only time the difference between them really matters is when you are asking yourself such esoteric questions as "are both science and religion ultimately based on faith"? And then, the differences between the two become vital to how you answer such strange questions.
I'm convinced, from what you've written, that we have no way to demonstrate an objective 'world-out-there' (certainly not a world of tables, chairs, and snow) beyond doubt. But isn't the fact of inter-subjective verifiability (of the kind you describe) pretty good evidence for it? How are our observations so well anchored to one another if they're not all 'pointing' toward something external to our individual 'inner' perceptions? (I don't ask this rhetorically; I'm curious about the alternatives). If there are not likely alternatives, then I'd say that objective reality is based on something more than faith (i.e., I'd disagree with the offending party's first premise).
ReplyDeleteHume pointed out that causality can't be demonstrated either - we only observe A followed by B, never A causing B. But he doesn't suggest (exactly) that causality requires faith; but rather that it is a non-rational belief that comes about kind of like a habit. Hmmm, perhaps this is like saying it requires faith - if faith simply means that we believe something that we can't demonstrate conclusively.
Great post!
Jon, I think the point you make -- that the reliability of intersubjective verification provides us with very strong evidence of an objective world -- is spot on!
ReplyDeleteOf course, one can imagine circumstances in which the evidence for an objective world outside of us would be misleading, and there would really exist nothing of the sort. For instance, Descartes pointed out the strict possibility that a demon was at work creating the illusion of an objective world outside of us.
But there is no intersubjectively verified evidence for Descartes demon in the manner that there is intersubjectively verified evidence for a world of objects. Consequently, I do not think we can say that it is just as much a matter of faith to believe in a world of objects as it is a matter of faith to believe in Descartes demon. Rather, Descartes demon seems to require much greater faith than belief in a world of objects.
Moreover, maybe we can take a hint from Hume and argue that belief in a world of objects is more a matter of habit than of faith.
As usual, you raise some fascinating points!
@Paul
ReplyDeleteOK, now I can see the cause of your outrage and better understand where you are coming from.
I am pretty much a novice at this branch of philosophy. In my humble opinion, it's kind of fun to postulate and ponder, but the "certainty" aspect can be taken a little too far. But, then, I am an engineer. ;-)
So, I would venture to say that anyone who has stubbed their toe on a bedframe or coffee table in the middle of the night has pretty much proven objects exist for all (im)practical purposes.
By extension of the above, and similar to Jon's comment, if you build a concrete wall in the middle of an unlit hallway, you are not going to find anyone who can walk through that wall just because they did not know it was there.
Therefore, I don't think it really is an assumption, but rather a natural conclusion that objects exist, or you could also say that intersubjective verifiability can effectively verify objectivity. But, perhaps, I am not being as rigorous as philosophers would prefer in this arena.
In short, though, yes, it is incredibly outrageous that someone would claim religion and science are on equal footing. I would reply with this thought experiment:
If you could start a new planet populated by humans who did not know anything about religion or science, but had math and language, what could we expect to find in 2000 years? Would we be surprised if they had come up with something resembling Newtonian physics? Probably not. Would we be surprised to find that they had come up with religion? Probably not. Would we be surprised if they had come up with and collectively agreed on a religion, and that religion was very close to our Christianity? Absolutely.
Quote The Wise Fool: "...I would venture to say that anyone who has stubbed their toe on a bedframe or coffee table in the middle of the night has pretty much proven objects exist for all (im)practical purposes."
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point, TWF. For every practical purpose I can think of, objects exist.
Of course, practical applications are secondary to the discipline of logic. And when someone says, "Science and religion logically rest on the same foundation -- faith", I am for one am going to be annoyed. But that's just me.
Hilarious and fantastic rant! The comments were icing on the cake. Thanx
ReplyDeleteGreat post. And from many of the comments, this can be intersubjectively verified.
ReplyDeletePut this down as my favorite post (old blog included), ever. I'll pass on the smelling salts.
ReplyDeleteDrive safely through the season. Peace on earth or a faint facsimile.
"Presumably, he would have then gone on to argue that, say, my acceptance of evolution, and his belief Jesus rose from the dead, are logically equal propositions since both science and religion depend on faith." -Paul
ReplyDelete*laughs* Oh. So that's what it's all about. As both a woman of science and a piously religious woman I would pronounce that argument patently lame. There's faith, and there's Faith.
Quote The Wise Fool: "...it is incredibly outrageous that someone would claim religion and science are on equal footing. I would reply with this thought experiment:
ReplyDeleteIf you could start a new planet populated by humans who did not know anything about religion or science, but had math and language, what could we expect to find in 2000 years? Would we be surprised if they had come up with something resembling Newtonian physics? Probably not. Would we be surprised to find that they had come up with religion? Probably not. Would we be surprised if they had come up with and collectively agreed on a religion, and that religion was very close to our Christianity? Absolutely."
The more I think about your thought experiment, TWF, the more I think it gets right to the heart of this matter. That is, it beautifully illustrates the different outcomes we would expect from intersubjectively verified reasoning, on the one hand, and faith on the other hand. Thank you for a very rewarding insight!
@ Sabio Lantz, Songbird, and Nance: Your very kind words have lifted my spirits and made my day! Thank you so much!
ReplyDelete@ Garnet: I love your distinction between faith and Faith! Thanks to Lausten North, who sometimes comments on this blog, I recently came across Marcus Borg. Borg's reflections on the meaning and nature of Faith have fascinated me. If he's at all right, Faith is a much more meaningful and richer thing than mere faith. He has a book, The Heart of Christianity that I hope you will find more than a little interesting.
ReplyDeleteHi Paul - first comment here.
ReplyDeleteComing here out of left field, as it were, I seriously thought your post was satire. No objective reality? Wow!
Naif that I am, intersubjective verifiability was something I had never heard of. I have since looked it up and read all the comments.
At any rate, I thought I would share with you my way of dealing with the 'you have faith in science the same as I have faith in the Bible' schlep.
First I call it out as a dishonest word game. Science is a method of attempting to learn about reality. I believe that using science produces concrete and practical results, and so does the faith head. We both demonstrate our belief in science every time we flip a light switch or go to the doctor.
There are four underlying premises to science. I believe in these premises because science demonstrated that they work. The premises are: 1) Regularity - the behaviors observed in the natural world will be uniform through time.
2) Consistency - A and 'not A' are mutually exclusive. 3) Our senses, and the tools we use to amplify our senses, while imperfect, are sufficiently reliable for approaching the truth about reality as nearly as our situation of existence permits. And of course, 4) there is a reality that we are interacting with. Or perhaps this might be state thusly, the principle of induction cannot be proven, but seems to work pretty darn well when applied to reality.
I admit, these are premises or axioms that the empiricist cannot avoid trusting or believing. I trust or believe because the evidence that they are good premises is that science works. We cannot prove we are not in a Matrix world, but how else do you pragmatically proceed other than the assumption that basically the world is as our senses describe it to us?
Throwing the word faith at this is a dishonest comparison to the faith that is 'the substance of things hoped for', or even faith that the stories told by biased, superstitious, and ignorant men thousands of years are true.
Or, perhaps this succinct summary is enough: science tests, religion believes.
As to 'other ways of knowing', I don't doubt it. I just need to be shown that any of these other ways has modalities of testing for veracity other that some 'inner witness of the Holy Spirit'.
Again, I may not understand correctly your intent and may be giving offense. I sure hope not.
Death and Furniture............
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. I love science, but those who would wield it as a blunt instrument drive me nuts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI have deleted your post on the grounds that it is bad form to show up on someone's blog, leave three self-serving links, and then depart without at all contributing to the conversation. That is called "spamming", and I do not permit it.
If you wish to comment on the article I posted, please feel free to do so. But please don't show up for the sole purpose of leaving links to a site you wish to promote.
@Stephen: I am fascinated by discussions on the proper scope of science. There are several issues involved that I've never quite resolved to my satisfaction.
ReplyDelete@Exrelayman: Thank you for dropping by!
ReplyDeleteI apologize if I gave the impression that I was claiming there is no objective reality. To claim there is or is not an objective reality is to indulge in metaphysics, and metaphysics is somewhat beyond my poor abilities to fathom.
Beyond that, I think your four premisses of science are intriguing. In fact, I am considering using them as a launching pad for a blog post, so I won't say much about them at the moment.
Thank you very much for some stimulating thoughts!