Referring to the posts in the random discussion thread it would warrant a original thread.

As noted by Tame Deuces it is stated that the scientist's "I" is much involved the work such as , for example; an experiment is brought forth by the "I' of the scientist . As different scientists may set up differing approaches one can say (Tame Deuces) that he is inextricably involved with the process.

If this is not what was meant, then please correct me.

The approach I attempted to clarify is that the scientific "I" is divorced from the process being studied in an "I-Thou" relationship. the idea being that individual predilections/beliefs/structures relative to the individual scientist are blocked by common consent and therefore all scientific endeavors are divorced from these inner aspects of the individual.

The above says "there shall be no subjectivity", the subject being the individual scientist. It also says "there is only the objective" meaning only that to which we perceive external to us, sans man, is the object of our study. To study man is also within this objectivity for he is looked at from afar, as per example, the science of anatomy.

The problem is that this "within man" to which the study denies is the most important aspect of a science of nature and man himself.The science of the day will only countenance "objective results" and the conclusion is the "science of the material". The science of "space " will only allow an "objective measurement", whether centimeters, dynes, faradays, or newtons, etc....

There is no place for the inner aspect of the human being in that he "thinks, feels and wills". Obviously I am speaking of "soul work" to which the modern scientist will put his hands to his head and scream eek!! This is not science and he's right , its not the "science of the material( its actually more material than present science which more like a living dream)" but, in an inclusive manner spreads its arms around the science of the material in order to bring the human soul to a cosmically real comprehension, a real science of the spirit.

Hopefully, an example to follow in which "thinking" and 'feeling" along with "will" is presented in the science of Goethe.

Science often (but not always) chases an ideal of objectivity. This is not objectivity in the philosophical sense of an external truth or something which is true regardless, but objectivity in the sense that a person "doing like you did" will reach similar findings. I often say something aka "method is more about how you do science, and less about how you think about science". That distinction is fairly important, but can be lost on someone exploring it from an epistemological perspective.

But there are some things to remember:
1. It does not always hold true. Aristotle and Galileo looked at near identical phenomena and saw different things, and later on a famous Swiss gentleman came about and messed it up even more. If there is no room for new interpretations, science would be unnecessary.
2. You are still designing the way you explore a subject and you are still interpreting the findings. Anyone interested in a neat subject lesson on that can read up on the history of the Hubble Constant. It is a prime example of how disagreement, controversy and debate are also integral parts of science.
3. Sometimes objectivity is not the ideal. Case studies, exploratory research, conjencture, simulations, interviews... these are all techniques where the goal is very much scientific, but not in the sense of scientific objectivity.

Link is to a Forbes article. The language is pretty straightforward, but there are plenty of more technical analyses for those so inclined.

There are several ways to consider objectivity from the point of view of scientific knowledge and discovery:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/s...c-objectivity/

I don't think the way you portrayed it is sufficiently robust for the types of claims you're making.

Objectivity does not imply "no room for new interpretations" or anything close to that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Objectivity does not mean devoid of "disagreement, controversy, and debate." I don't understand how your point here speaks to objectivity.

These are not sub-ideal forms of objectivity. It's not clear what value you're providing to your position by bringing these up.

The opening section in the SEP link is pretty much the point that I made, except I was a bit less bombastic. That is more than sufficient for a discussion on this forum. If your point is that I didn't write an essay of comparable content, nuance, length or quality as the remainder SEP article, that is true.

Well, a good place to start is the SEP article you linked. It does a good job of countering your objections from the earlier thread and cites heavily the writings of Thomas Kuhn, which I recommended to you earlier.

The point you seem to be making and the point that the article seems to be making do not seem to me to be the same point. If you're trying to make the points raised in the SEP article, you're doing a particularly poor job of it.

Just as before, I will ask you to point specifically to the things that you think are making your point within the article. When I asked you to do this the last time, the things you quoted were not relevant to the point you were arguing. I want to again give you the opportunity to be as explicit as possible in your connecting of the dots.

(I'll also note that it's false that Kuhn was "heavily" cited in that article. He comes up in a couple sections and that's it. I would point to this as you again simply overstating the reality of your position. If you're trying to say that your point is specifically and only section 2.2, then maybe you're on to something.)

The article does pretty much what I have done, but more formally and from a more in-depth perspective of philosophy and epistemology. Which is no surprise, I do not think my posts are up to SEP standards and nor have I intended them to be.

The article starts with a non-nuanced definition of scientific objectivity. The definition is pretty much on par with your and Carlo's view on science in general: "the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors."

The article then goes on to criticize this definition, explain why such an non-nuanced view of scientific objectivity is problematic and suggest refinements to the position. I have no issues with that, but I will note that the style, language and approach is very different from what would be taught in a scientific method course. This is very clearly written by a philosopher.

As for Thomas Kuhn, he is even listed in the "relevant sections".

Goethe, with respect to "objectivity", flt that the science of Man has to include Man in the equation, so to speak. To separate Man as an "insignificant speck of dust" in the universe is consequential to this "objectivity' which divorces Man from the cosmos.

The modern approach to the "senses" in effect treats each of the senses a if in one hodge podge where the light/color/sight of the eye is treated as the "tone" of the ear. This can be seen when at one time it was seen that "tone" could be associated with condensations/rarefractions of air and the study of light took on the same characteristics and treated light as a "wave entity".

The character of "tone" was consolidated as the character of "light" without much adieu and I believe these concepts are present unto modern science.

"Touch" is conceptualized as consequential to stimulation of the pacinian corpuscles whereas "heat' was relegated as a state of matter driven into the cellar of "bouncing molecules" of question elasticity.

When one relates to the "eye" and the "ear" it should be apparent that they are entirely different organisms physiologically and to treat them in like manner is more than questionable. Likewise taste and smell , seen in their own light are of a dreamier nature than the robust sight and sound.

It presents that the "touch" of the human being is a function of "pressure" to which "gravity' also manifests. Touch is throughout the body unlike the "brightness/color" which is focused on one organ as is sound which is not only associated with air but has a physiologically connected to the larynx as we all know for we speak the words of another who speaks to use; otherwise it becomes gibberish.

Warmth is another "sense" which is throughout the body and not relegated to one location on the structure of man. Touch where you will and graduations of heat will be apparent in more of a comparison. The picture of placing the left hand in warm water and the right hand in cold water and then placing both hands in tepid water is well known as the right hand will feel warmer and the left hand colder.

The warmth sense is related to differences of level. To add some clarity; use of a thermometer(s) in the right and left water baths and placing the two thermometers into the tepid water will show the same type of effect( as the human) as the left thermometer will decrease and the right thermometer will increase. Again, differences in level.

I'l stop here as hopefully the scientific quality of "heat' can be ascertained, not as "bouncing molecules" but as an entity which stands on its own. Too bad I can't show graphs/pictures but in any case hopefully next step will become evident appropriately.

What constitutes a "sense" in science is not an over and done debate.

Yes, there is a common broad characterization of the senses into five discrete categories, and this categorization is fairly useful. It is however a characterization that wasn't made by science, but by classical philosophy and medieval theology and later became a staple of the arts.

The "five senses" model is a solid and intuitive way to understand senses, but in science what constitutes a sense is far more complex. Our brain receives information in far more ways than these, it actively influences said information and it can combine information from several sources.

A good example is a picture like this:


Where your brain will typically tell you that A and B are in different shades of gray, but they are not:


(sorry for the hatchet-cropping job, but I had limited tools and time)

There are , of course, more than the five senses but my approach is to clarify the nature of "heat" with respect to man in a physiological sense. this is accord with Goethe that Man is the reagent for a scientific study of entities and hopefully this will be made clearer as follows.

Background:

A being living on a line can only know the points on the line but cannot reach to a point outside the line a per example a perpendicular with an end point.

Likewise a being living on a plane , or a plane being, cannot again go to the third projection as he can only appreciate the planar surface.

And of course the three dimensions of space cannot be escaped by a three dimensional being.

Hopefully this will make sense later,

The concepts and ideas in classical physics are not so old but can be origined by the Academia del Cimento which was founded in 1657 . Many experiments were done here especially in the fields of heat, acoustics and tone.

Galileo had a relationship with this center but in any case it was here that the first experiments were developed with the apparatus of the thermometer. As we all know, the mercury in the thermometer would initially begin to rise, then fall, only to rise again. This was explained such that the glass flask expanded, causing the mercury to drop, only to then continue on the northward course of temperature.

Getting straight to the point, the physics books speak to the expansion of solids with respect to heat and heating an iron bar is an example. Sorry, no picture of a long iron (metal) bar.

By heating the bar we cn get the expansion of the bar by the formula:

1. L = Lo (1 + αt)

where the alpha script is the coefficient of expansion of the particular metal. ie..iron's coefficient would be different than silver or different than copper.

The formula states : the new length is the sum of the old length plus the respective increase in length which is a function of temperature and the alpha coefficient.

2. Metal bars have not only length but breadth and theretofore the breadth formula of the bar is expressed by :

2. b = bo (1 + αt)

Going on the formula for the area becomes ;

3. Lb = [Lo (1 + αt)] [bo (1 + αt)] or
4. Lb = Lobo (1 + αt)2
5. Lb = Lobo (1 + 2αt + α2t2)

If we consider thickness of the surface we get:

6. Lbd = Lobodo (1 + 3αt + 3α2t2 + α3t3)

And so this is the formula for the Volume expansion which is shortened by the average physics text to :

7. V = Vo (1 + 3αt)

Because the alpha coefficient is so small the higher powers are dropped to negligible which gives the above formula.

Hopefully this will end at the next page.... goin' for heat...

Interesting that you seem to think I think this. Perhaps it's because you're not reading what I'm writing. None of this runs contrary to anything that I've claimed, and in fact these are things that I've already explicitly acknowledged.

So from my point of view, it really does appear you have no idea what you're actually talking about, and instead are flailing about at something entirely different.

It's like you think I said that Kuhn was irrelevant, which would be beyond an overstatement of my claim and clearly in the realm of "utterly false." (Though I have to admit that I don't see a "relevant sections" title anywhere on that page, so I have no clue what you're talking about.)

I still think you're dramatically overstating the position. It's almost like trying to draw up an extreme position simply to be contrary. None of the references you have selected talk about the "I" in the way that you are talking about it, and because of that your view isn't very well presented and poorly articulated. (Edit: I'm saying that your poorly articulated position is probably caused by the fact that you don't have good support to help explain your view. It's entirely possible that your position could be articulated clearly. It's just that you have not accomplished this.)

This is a reference which displays to the "heating curves for metals" which is also well known from beginning chemistry.

https://www.google.com/search?q=heat...w=1920&bih=937

As displayed when a metal is heated the temperature rises until it starts to melt when at which time the temperature remains constant until the metal is entirely melted and again the temperature begins to rise.

Subsequently the temperature rises until the evaporation point when the temperature remains constant until evaporation is complete.

Even though the temperature remains constant, for example during the melting of the metal, the melting continues. At this point, and during this time, what might be called a discontinuity actually brings to light the idea of "heat".

It is apparent that the "heat" continues "working" with no change in temperature for if the flame is taken away the melting discontinues. At this point heat and temperature can be seen to not have an equivalence.

Of course a long metal rod also gives off heat when heated that does not travel only along the rod for if it did there would be no loss of heat.

At the Academia del Cimento the clarity arises as the thermometer is devised in the realm of "space", is a spatial measurement. And so by the very fact that heat is given off by a heated metal bar it is conclusive that heat cannot be measured as a spatial entity.

Looking at our formula which is not abridged we see for volume expansion:

Lbd = Lobodo (1 + 3αt + 3α2t2 + α3t3)

The meaning of the equation stands to such that when one approaches the 2nd power to the 3rd powers of temperature we have left the realm of space. the conclusion presents itself such that the being of heat is within the spaceless realm, a higher realm so to speak which can and does manifest within our realm of space.

If one looks for the "fourth dimension" then the realm of "heat" arises, active in the heating of the metal or for whatever we note the being of heat but "not of space". The statement "fourth dimension" is used as a pointer for it is common to seek this higher dimension in terms of space. I believe there are mathematical fields in which an idea of a higher dimension is postulated and presented with spatial projections.

Qualities are more to the point here as we have the well known supposed states of matter which are ;

Solid
Liquid
Gas
Heat or Warmth

There are realms above and below the above four elements but its enough to come to some comprehension of heat.

And so, as Goethe spoke scientifically in some manner the human being as a sensor of the realm of heat is included in our science. Also as one can sense the warmth in the body of varying graduations we can see that Man is in a rightful sense a "warmth or heat being".

In this perspective the "Human Being is a higher(fourth) dimensional being expressing within three dimensional space".

Finis.

As explained to you in the earlier thread, using the term "I" was simply in response to Carlo's usage. I still agree, like I wrote in the earlier thread, that there are more precise wordings to use. But I know what Carlo meant and I saw no (and still see no) reason for your lengthy tangents about how bad it is. You want to debate with Carlo, you need to accept Lingua Carlo.

Almost all SEP articles have "relevant sections" listed at the end, after references. Both those and references are wise to check out, as SEP articles often have single authors and do carry opinions.

I also think you should read SEP articles you cite in support of your arguments. In this case the article in question could have taught you some nuance, and you'd probably also have realized that we're not at some knife-edge of controversy. In regards to science, this debate died together with positivism.

Here's his characterization of your usage of it, which you neither confirmed nor denied:

Do you accept or reject his characterization thus far in his presentation?

The reason I'm challenging your statements is because I don't think it's clear that your argument is actually successful against what he's saying. Much in the same way that you have clearly claimed something false about my position, I think your attempted use of "I" is a failed characterization of his position. While I have much I could disagree with Carlo about, I don't really see anything particularly objectionable about what he's saying.

I do not see how this framework is so much different from saying that there is no experiment that "I" can do that "you" cannot (assuming you had access to the same resources as I have). Furthermore, if those experiments are performed, the results would also be the same. This is separate from saying that therefore there is a singular interpretation of the results (and I haven't seen Carlo make that claim, though I admit I may have missed it).

And despite all of your protestations, you have not provided a single accounting in which this idea would be denied. Instead, you have continued to insist on a rather peculiar interpretation that I continue to maintain is a gross overstatement of the position that is actually staked out by the literature.

I agree that this isn't a knife-edge of controversy. Or at least, it shouldn't be. But because you have chosen a bizarre presentation and have defined and defended your position so poorly, you have turned something that should be benign into something that is strongly objectionable.

So by "relevant sections" you mean "related entries"? It might help if you took the time to double check simple things like that if you're going to use quotation marks.

The only challenge of substance I have seen is a very idealized description of scientific process that you made early in the other thread. The SEP article you cited offers a far more nuanced understanding of objectivity in science.

Perhaps that is best exemplified by one of its earliest statements:
You seem to read the article as a very one-sided support for your original description of science. That tells me that you did not read past the opening paragraph.

The concept of "objectivity" causes more problems than it solves in these discussions.

It is much more useful to explore the methodology of establishing reliable, pragmatic inter-subjective knowledge.

Please do me a favor and quote precisely the statement that you are claiming I made.

Edit: The reason for this is that you've already claimed I've taken a position I haven't. You will no longer receive any benefit of the doubt in this conversation with regards to your characterizations of what I've said.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...2&postcount=10

And to be clear, my position is that your presentation is a mess because of the particulars of how you have chosen to use your language to describe your position. I think that the connection between what you're saying and the various things you've cited as supporting your position is weak as a result of that decision, and that it is causing your position to read as being significantly overstated. You have blamed carlo for the specific language usage, but you have not addressed that claim in any meaningful way.

Yeah I agree with that, and luckily these days empirical, pragmatist and instrumentalist approaches are the norm. The debates of positivism are pretty much long since over and more practically inclined people like Popper and Kuhn are the names that carried over to scientific method. Which is rather brilliant in itself, seeing as how their views are sometimes at odds. That's the nuance that is always lost when people approach this subject with binary propositions.

The terms you suggest here follows that line and suggests an approach a long that vein. It allows us to explain well why science works and why it is a healthy approach to knowledge, but keeps us rooted and aware of our position, with no delusions of omniscience or that we can somehow ignore the human component.

Still, the term "objectivity" is used a fair bit and often misunderstood when it is, so discussions like these will surface all the time.