skynelson
03-15-2009, 10:51 PM
Hey all, :heart:
I thought I would begin a little conversation after tonight's enjoyable discussion at Julia's.
I think objectivity needs to be more clearly for our purposes. There are two aspects:
1) objectivity refers to obtaining experimental results not altered by the mindset or intentions of the experimenter.
2) objectivity refers to the idea that there is an objective world, one which exists without us being around to witness it. i.e. there is a birds eye view, or God's view of reality.
These two ideas are different. Julia is pointing to the importance of the first one, upon which all of modern science is based. This allows for reproduceability in experiments.
One interpretation of the 'observer effect' in quantum physics is that depending on how we arrange the experiment, we will measure different properties of the system being measured. for example, if we measure the spectrum of a given star in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, we find specific verifiable/reproducible results. if we measure the spectrum of the same star in the x-ray range of the electromagnetic spectrum using a different tool, we find a different set of numbers because it is a different set of properties. this doesn't mean that our observation is affecting the data, it means that our method of observation impacts, what data we measure. for whatever data we choose to measure, we will obtain objective results.
The second definition of objectivity is, I think, really just an assumption we all make about reality. it has nothing to do with the actual foundations of the scientific method. in my theory on synchronicity, I make these two postulates: 1-any event that an individual has not observed is still in an indefinite combination of states. 2-there is no birds eye view of reality, so there is no way to argue over which events are already determined. anything that we observe in common (or share any information about) is in a defined state and has what might be called an objective reality that we can talk about. Until that point, we can't say that it does, and I propose that it doesn't.
(To read it more completely, Expecting Synchronicity - The Science Behind the Science of Mind (https://www.expectingsynchronicity.com))
I highly commend Chris on encouraging people to investigate the meanings of the words they're using. This is often the source of conflict. We may start arguing about whether objectivity exists, but it seems pretty clear to me that there are two different operational definitions of objectivity. it's pretty silly to argue about something when you each mean different things! (of course, that's religion for you)
Thanks everyone for a great night.
I thought I would begin a little conversation after tonight's enjoyable discussion at Julia's.
I think objectivity needs to be more clearly for our purposes. There are two aspects:
1) objectivity refers to obtaining experimental results not altered by the mindset or intentions of the experimenter.
2) objectivity refers to the idea that there is an objective world, one which exists without us being around to witness it. i.e. there is a birds eye view, or God's view of reality.
These two ideas are different. Julia is pointing to the importance of the first one, upon which all of modern science is based. This allows for reproduceability in experiments.
One interpretation of the 'observer effect' in quantum physics is that depending on how we arrange the experiment, we will measure different properties of the system being measured. for example, if we measure the spectrum of a given star in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, we find specific verifiable/reproducible results. if we measure the spectrum of the same star in the x-ray range of the electromagnetic spectrum using a different tool, we find a different set of numbers because it is a different set of properties. this doesn't mean that our observation is affecting the data, it means that our method of observation impacts, what data we measure. for whatever data we choose to measure, we will obtain objective results.
The second definition of objectivity is, I think, really just an assumption we all make about reality. it has nothing to do with the actual foundations of the scientific method. in my theory on synchronicity, I make these two postulates: 1-any event that an individual has not observed is still in an indefinite combination of states. 2-there is no birds eye view of reality, so there is no way to argue over which events are already determined. anything that we observe in common (or share any information about) is in a defined state and has what might be called an objective reality that we can talk about. Until that point, we can't say that it does, and I propose that it doesn't.
(To read it more completely, Expecting Synchronicity - The Science Behind the Science of Mind (https://www.expectingsynchronicity.com))
I highly commend Chris on encouraging people to investigate the meanings of the words they're using. This is often the source of conflict. We may start arguing about whether objectivity exists, but it seems pretty clear to me that there are two different operational definitions of objectivity. it's pretty silly to argue about something when you each mean different things! (of course, that's religion for you)
Thanks everyone for a great night.