|
|
|
|
Objectivity
Objectivity in modern science is traditionally thought of as one of the more desirable necessities for its own credibility. The basic Assumptions are, on the one hand, that any scientific description of nature must be independent of the wishes, moods, and/or needs of an individual scientist (or group of scientists), and on a more fundamental basis that nature itself is objective, because it is ruled by laws and not by the concerns or intentions of its inhabitants. The latter is highly critical in that the laws of nature are deemed to be inviolable, quantitative, inexorable, and general; i.e., they should not bend for a purpose. One might ask, Why not? Why not have a little purposeful intervention? What, after all, is the big deal about objectivity? The answer may be that quantitatively, the natural sciences are attempting to deal exclusively with the study of efficient causes and of the laws that they express. [Anomalous behavior and/or events need not apply.] Any idea or conception whereby physical phenomena are judged to be manifestations of purposive relations would lead to subjective judgments in scientific arguments [“My science can beat up your science!”]. Thus such science would in turn be (1) non-quantifiable, (2) non-testable, (3) not capable of being replicated (and thus verifiable), and (4) not expressions of general laws (which could then be used to create new science). Just as assumptions are made in order to make the mathematics easier, objectivity is enshrined in order to ease the formulation of theory and its accompanying mathematics! It’s simply the easier route. The bad news is that, “the rejection of final causes by classical physics was the rejection of their justification by Myths. The thesis -- all being is explained by the power of its end; the present is explained by its future -- is so utterly untestable that it was the first one to get into conflict with the newly discovered principle of objectivity.” [1] Lothar Schäfer has noted that, “Animism is the belief that all objects have a soul and are, in a way, alive; it is the assumption that a universal teleonomic principle is active throughout the entire cosmos. The important function of animism is that it conveys to human beings the soothing feeling of a kinship with nature, of having a purpose, of being a part of a Grand Design.” Furthermore, “Among our traditions of thinking the tradition of modern science is based on objectivity. It is the belief that nature is objective because it is ruled by laws and not by purposes.” “In contrast, when a process is the expression of a final cause, the intent to reach a goal, no matter how, is the cause of an action. Objective science by definition must exclude purpose from its description of nature.” Consequently, when science placed its reliance on objectivity as the sole source of true knowledge, the world order of Ancient Myths and religions was torn asunder. Science first tested and then claimed to have proved false the explanations offered by Mythology as to the order of the universe. [Forget the fact that many of these same myths accurately portrayed historical reality, but were overlain with a degree of PR for the powers that were.] In doing its hatchet job, science destroyed the authority of myths as a source of knowledge and authority, and inadvertently social stability and accepted systems of values. Myths and religions “told people why things were the way they were and why one had to act the way one was supposed to act. As education, they were characterized by one immensely important property: knowledge and values were derived from the same source.” By science destroying myth and religion, the foundation of social stability was destroyed. [This may have been a good thing, in that there are great gains to be made from Chaos Theory!] “If nature has a purpose, life can have meaning. This establishes a covenant between human beings and nature. In contrast, mechanism regards physical phenomena as manifestations of objective laws without any purpose for the human fate, and in doing so destroys the covenant and makes life pointless.” [1] For the scientifically minded, however, one might consider the following experiment: A society is created based on mythological truth, but is then transformed in such a manner as to allow science to run rampant and be unrestrained by any sense of purpose. Such a turn of events may be much to the dismay of the society, but the purpose is to allow great progress in science for the benefit of the grand experimenter. Keep in mind that laboratory animals are routinely allowed to create new science, even when the lab rats are just that. Accordingly, if the grand experimenter decides to allow the human race to join in its own unique rat race, and thereby to choose science over myth or metaphysics, then a lot of good science might be accomplished to the benefit of the grand experimenter, even if ultimately the scientists have been used rather badly. This scenario makes a good case for someone like Enki (of Enki and Enlil) to convince the other Anunnaki that a 2600 year Science Age might make for some interesting results. Something a mythical(?) creature such as Paatah might appreciate. In a very objective manner, of course! Forward to: Lothar Schäfer Mathematical Theory ________________________ References: |
|
The Library of ialexandriah
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved
|
