July 19, 2004
GIVEN THAT EVEN THE SUBJECT CAN NOT BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY:
QED: science and philosophy: Science turns to philosophy in search for truth (Robert Matthews, 7/07/04, Daily Telegraph)
[A meeting I attended] was organised jointly by the Group of Policy Advisers to the European Commission and the London School of Economics, with the aim of showing what philosophers could contribute to the vexed question of dealing with risk.The answer, it soon became clear, was rather a lot. Take the trade disputes that flare-up between America and Europe over the alleged risks posed by some or other product. One such dispute, concerning Europe's de facto moratorium on approval or marketing of genetically modified (GM) produce, is currently in the lap of the World Trade Organisation and shows no signs of being resolved any time soon.
On the face of it, the way to do so is simple: just call in the scientists, and ask them for an objective view of the evidence. Which seems perfectly reasonable until one considers the issues involved with philosophical rigour.
For example, one of the leading themes of current philosophy is that the notion of objectivity is utterly illusory. This is not some post-modern pose: the subjectivity of scientific knowledge has been proved with mathematical rigour. The upshot of these proofs is that data merely serves to update our pre-existing beliefs, and that its impact on those beliefs depends on such touchy-feely concepts as trust.
First comes your faith, then your "facts." Posted by Orrin Judd at July 19, 2004 2:41 PM
"...while Mr Rumsfeld was widely ridiculed for distinguishing between "known knowns", "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", scientists and policy makers would do well to follow his example."
Who would have thought -- Donald Rumsfeld, the philosopher!
Posted by: jd watson at July 19, 2004 3:23 PMTest 123.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at July 19, 2004 3:38 PMMr. Matthews recently had a great post in the New Scientist magazine, comparing typical scientific null-hypothesis testing vice apriori reasoning, and came to the same conclusion as this article.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at July 19, 2004 3:42 PMMr. Judd;
That's OK as long as you don't confuse our lack of ability to be sure of the facts with the unreality of those facts. That's one of the slippage points from skepticism to post-modernism.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 19, 2004 3:46 PMI am getting a 'questionable content' error every time I try to use Reverend B's name. At any rate, Matthews has a website:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rajm/
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at July 19, 2004 3:47 PMAOG:
Most of us simply have faith in reality, some can even acknowledge that's all we have and that it suffices.
Posted by: oj at July 19, 2004 4:05 PMWhere's Alan Sokal when we need him?
This certainly sounds like a philosopher: "the notion of objectivity is utterly illusory." Philosophy is handicapped by its excessive use of superlatives. It cannot be that mankind tends to overrate objectivity, or that objectivity is tremendously misunderstood - no, these clowns get attention with that "UTTERLY illusory" schtick. Talk about grabbing for the "fiteen minutes of fame" handhold....
Then there was that flip-flop of "there can be ONLY one universe" to the "there has to be an infinte number of universes." Philosophy is certainly within the realm of the arts and humanities, as distiguished from science and technology. Hey guys, where's Sokal?
Posted by: LarryH at July 19, 2004 5:17 PMLarry, you're a guy after my own heart.
Orrin's problem with science as science is that he pays no attention to the difference between hypothesis and tested theory.
For him, to be able to jeer at some far-out proposal also calls into question every other proposal anybody ever made.
He's just being cute. He does not actually believe any of this. He drives a Suburban, on the grounds that if he hits a moose, the moose will suffer more. He's mostly right, but that's a scientific, not a theological belief.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 19, 2004 9:07 PMWhat moose?
Posted by: oj at July 19, 2004 9:43 PMA moose once bit my sister...
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 19, 2004 11:16 PMwhat sister?
Posted by: oj at July 19, 2004 11:21 PMI saw a moose in Wyoming once (or twice). Probably not the same moose (AOG's moose, not Harry's.)
Posted by: Uncle Bill at July 20, 2004 9:24 AMwhat Wyoming?
Posted by: oj at July 20, 2004 9:29 AMMay as well reduce our dependence on Muslims by driving a Civic, then.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 20, 2004 2:52 PMI'm too scientifically minded--my few miles per gallon won't mean a thing, but the Suburban will kill a deer rather than vice versa. Mose are still iffy...
Posted by: oj at July 20, 2004 3:17 PMLife is full of chances. We once had a school board story in which the chairman, Ferd Smith, fired the superintendent, Fred Smith. Boy was that one hard to keep straight.
Fred was driving through the countryside to a job interview and hit a deer. An 8-point buck. It came through the windshield and a tine pierced Fred's heart and killed him.
When I was a hod carrier, over lunch one day I found myself surrounded by a bunch of self-proclaimed experts in running over animals. They assured me that it's better to hit a cow, who has a high center of gravity and tends to go over the roof, than a pig, which will roll the car.
Me, I drive slow.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 21, 2004 4:18 PM