DOCSLIB.ORG

Science and Subjectivity: Understanding Objectivity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science and Subjectivity: Understanding Objectivity 44 Philosophy and Progress22 Philosophy and Progress: Vols. LIX-LX, January-June, July-December, 2016 this regard, Cartesians appeal to the theory of conspiracy: the ISSN 1607-2278 (Print), DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pp.v59i1-2.36680 idea that various evil influences perverted our originally pure and innocent mind. And this is science which through its methods and techniques ensure to prevent the conspiracy and to discover the manifest truth. The only thing we need to do is to use the scientific methods. This is the traditional understanding of the nature of science which gives us the idea that scientific knowledge is SCIENCE AND SUBJECTIVITY: free from any kind of human attitude and strictly based on observations, experiments, logical analyses of its concepts and UNDERSTANDING OBJECTIVITY OF so on which give us the bare facts of the real world. According SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE to this view, human attitude is associated with human sciences; but as far as natural science is concerned there is no scope for Md. Abdul Mannan* any subjective elements. Scientific knowledge is purely objective, and it is an objective description of the real structure of the world. But the recent philosophical insight into the nature of Introduction science gives us a different idea in this regard. Scientists are There is an epistemological optimism, inspired by the Western men and social beings; therefore, no scientist is beyond his renaissance, leading to the faith that man has power to discern psychology, ideology and sociology which have significant the certain knowledge. The essence of this view lies in the impact on his thought. All these factors produce influences doctrine that ‘truth is manifest’ which implies that truth may over scientific decisions, such as decisions about when a perhaps be veiled, but it may reveal itself. If it does not reveal phenomenon is recognized as a problem, what the methods are itself, it may be revealed by us. Removing the veil may not be for solving the problem, what the methods are for justification, easy, but if we once got the naked truth before our eyes, we how different theories are to be compared, when the research have the power to see it, to distinguish it from falsehood, and to comes to end, etc. This line of investigation will clearly show know that it is true. There is no problem to recognize the truth. that scientific knowledge possesses one kind of subtle Truth is only to be unveiled and discovered. If this is the nature subjectivity in its nature. However, this kind of subjectivity is of truth, then the question arises how we ever fall into error. In not like that of Berkley’s, rather it is understood in terms of scientist’s human attitudes, conceptual framework, specific * Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Chittagong interest, background knowledge, all of which influence his E-mail : [email protected] thought. For this reason, a scientist may think of the world differently than what it really is. Science and Subjectivity : Understanding Objectivity of Scientific 45 46 Philosophy and Progress Scientific Theory and its Subjective Origin depending on the scientists’ position in the knowledge situation of his time. Interpretation of a phenomenon depends on some Scientific theory may emerge from any idea - the theory other theory; this other theory again depends on some yet other becomes scientific only if it is prepared for a critical and theory and in this way, it goes ad infinitum. At this point empirical examination. Any kind of source may be the scientists decide to stop somewhere to settle for an accepted background of scientific knowledge. We have to give up the basic observational statement as an arbiter of falsification idea of ultimate source of our knowledge and no source has the process. If any basic observational statement which supports overwhelming authority. Scientific knowledge may be theory-2, for instance, goes counter to the theory-1 (the generated from any humanistic ideas which are mixed with previous theory), then it is to say that theory-1 is falsified by errors, prejudices, dreams, and hopes. Thus, Popper says that theory-2. Question arises that how much objective the any product of human mind - such as myth, metaphysics, observational statement is. There are many human elements in stories, guesses or whatever– may be the valid source of scientists’ decision to stop at certain position to settle a basic scientific knowledge. Knowledge is thus an adventure of ideas. statement –this is human decision, not a logical end. These ideas are produced by us, and not by world around us. (Popper, 1965, p.95). Krajewiski has also pointed out the human subjectivity in scientific decision. He argues that the investigation starts from This is the first step of our knowledge adventure. The a hypothesis. After that, hypotheses empirically deduce the second step is to try to eliminate error from those products by testable consequences and these consequences are put in an criticism, and that criticism may be as severe as possible at any experiment. If the test gives positive result, the candidate given time. This point of view indicates that to produce a hypothesis is accepted, though this decision is never final. If theory and to criticize it by the available knowledge apparatus the test gives negative result, the candidate is rejected. Here the of the time are dependent on the totality of human ability and experimental design depends again on some other hypothesis. the human conditions in which scientists work for science. So, in this competition, all parties start from hypotheses. So, scientific adventure aims not only to produce theories, (Krajewski, 1977, p. 71). Creation of hypothesis is a subjective but the essential part of its aim is to criticize those theories. involvement. Criticizing ideas may also emerge from any source. In this way For Popper, growth of the theories in science should not be science exposes theories and counter theories to a fiercest considered as the result of the collection or accumulation of struggle for survival. This is a struggle to falsify the previous observations. On the contrary, observations and their theory by the new theory. This implies that theories must be accumulation should be considered as results of the scientific falsifiable – a theory to be scientific needs to be empirically theories. So, science itself throws new light on things; that it falsifiable. To be empirical, falsification must be done on the not only solves problem, but it creates many more. In this way basis of basic observational statement. But a question can arise: we look out for new observations. (Popper, 1965, p. 27). is observational statement really objective? A phenomenon Theory is produced from the imaginative mind of scientist, and could be observed and interpreted from different points of view then we observe according to the theory. Our observation needs Science and Subjectivity : Understanding Objectivity of Scientific 47 48 Philosophy and Progress to be interpreted. So, without theory we could not orient theories that are replete with unobservable entities are ourselves in the world. We observe as our theory suggests. For grandiose ontological frameworks. This ontological instance, the Marxists literally observe class struggle construction is dependent on human ability and personality. everywhere, for their theory suggests that history of mankind is Scientific discovery depends upon some happy thought, no the history of struggle between classes. The Freudians observe maxims can be given which inevitably lead to discovery. everywhere repression and sublimation; the Adlerian sees how (Laudan, 1980, pp. 179-181). Every discovery contains a feelings of inferiority expresses themselves in every action and creative intuition as says Bergson. every utterance. These show that all observations are designed We can find human element in scientific thought when we by their theory. (Pitt, 1987, p. 53). look at a scientific problem and the way to solution. When we Popper declares that nothing can be built on pure data, first encounter the problem, we do not know much about it. At because there is nothing as pure data; there is nothing simply best we have only a vague idea as to what our problem really ‘given’ to us uninterpreted. All our knowledge is interpreted in consists of. How, then, can we produce an adequate solution the light of our expectation and our theories. (Popper, 1983, p. where we do not have adequate understanding about our 102). Theoretical entities, such as electric field, magnetic field, problem? Obviously, we cannot. We must get better gravitational field – all are hypothetical constructs. They are acquaintance with the problem. But, how do we? For Popper, metaphysical and speculation of scientists’ minds. So, nature of we can do so by producing an inadequate solution, and by the world becomes different with the difference of the criticizing it. Only in this way can we come to understand the scientists’ thought. What is oxygen to Lavoisier is problem. For, to understand a problem means to understand its dephlogisticated air to Priestly. No experiment could solve difficulties; and to understand difficulties means to understand their controversy. So, Hanson says that two observers do not why it is not easily soluble - why the more obvious solutions see the same thing. Observing a protozoon – amoeba, one saw do not work. We might therefore produce additional more one celled animal, but the other a non-celled animal (Hanson, obvious solutions. These solutions must be criticized in order 1958, p. 4). to find out why they do not work. In this way we become Moreover, there is general skepticism about the viability of acquainted with problem and we may be able to produce logic of discovery, because most of us cannot conceive that solutions that are better than the earlier ones – provided that we there might be rules that would lead us from laboratory data to have the creative ability to produce new guesses, and more new theories as complex as quantum theory, general relativity, and guesses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge
    ....... CONJECTURES sense similar to that in which processes or things may be said to be parts of the world; that the world consists of facts in a sense in which it may be said to consist of (four dimensional) processes or of (three dimensional) things. They believe that, just as certain nouns are names of things, sentences are names of facts. And they sometimes even believe that sentences are some- thing like pictures of facts, or that they are projections of facts.7 But all this is mistaken. The fact that there is no elephant in this room is not one of the processes or parts ofthe world; nor is the fact that a hailstorm in Newfound- 10 land occurred exactIy I I I years after a tree collapsed in the New Zealand bush. Facts are something like a common product oflanguage and reality; they are reality pinned down by descriptive statements. They are like abstracts from TRUTH, RATIONALITY, AND THE a book, made in a language which is different from that of the original, and determined not only by the original book but nearly as much by the principles GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE of selection and by other methods of abstracting, and by the means of which the new language disposes. New linguistic means not only help us to describe 1. THE GROWTH OF KNOWLEDGE: THEORIES AND PROBLEMS new kinds of facts; in a way, they even create new kinds of facts. In a certain sense, these facts obviously existed before the new means were created which I were indispensable for their description; I say, 'obviously' because a calcula- tion, for example, ofthe movements of the planet Mercury of 100 years ago, MY aim in this lecture is to stress the significance of one particular aspect of carried out today with the help of the calculus of the theory of relativity, may science-its need to grow, or, if you like, its need to progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Kuhn on Paradigms
    Vol. 29, No. 7, July 2020, pp. 1650–1657 DOI 10.1111/poms.13188 ISSN 1059-1478|EISSN 1937-5956|20|2907|1650 © 2020 Production and Operations Management Society Thomas Kuhn on Paradigms Gopesh Anand Department of Business Administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 469 Wohlers Hall, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, [email protected] Eric C. Larson Department of Business Administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 8 Wohlers Hall, 1206 S. Sixth, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, [email protected] Joseph T. Mahoney* Department of Business Administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 140C Wohlers Hall, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, [email protected] his study provides key arguments and contributions of Kuhn (1970) concerning paradigms, paradigm shifts, and sci- T entific revolutions. We provide interpretations of Kuhn’s (1970) key ideas and concepts, especially as they relate to business management research. We conclude by considering the practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts for contemporary business management researchers and suggest that ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for the health of a scientific community as methodological rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived from the phi- losophy of science. Key words: Paradigms; paradigm shifts; scientific revolutions; normal science History: Received: February 2019; Accepted: March 2020 by Kalyan Singhal, after 3 revisions. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the rich descriptions of the process of advancing this theory. SSR showed that science primarily advances Thomas S.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Subjectivity & Reality
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Science and Religion Dialogue Prints Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| April 2016 | Volume 7 | Issue 4 | pp. 333-336 333 Pereira, C. & Reddy, J. S. K., On Science & Phenomenology in Consciousness Studies Perspective Science, Subjectivity & Reality * Contzen Pereira & J. S. K. Reddy Abstract In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. Key Words: Science, subjectivity, reality, cosmos, peripersonal space. Modern science is based on the principle “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.” The one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it from nothing, in a single instant - Terrence McKenna The Cosmos showers the experience of life graced by an enigmatic subject grounded in an objective fabric (or biological structure). The extent of the subjective experience is in a way bounded by the limitations of an objective fabric.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Questions Philosophy of Science Spring 2011 Exam 1
    Study Questions Philosophy of Science Spring 2011 Exam 1 1. Explain the affinities and contrasts between science and philosophy and between science and metaphysics. 2. What is the principle of verification? How was the logical positivist‟s view of verification influenced by Hume‟s fork? Explain. 3. Explain Hume‟s distinction between impressions and ideas. What is the relevance of this distinction for the empiricist‟s view of how knowledge is acquired? 4. Why was Hume skeptical about “metaphysical knowledge”? Does the logical positivist, such as A. J. Ayer, agree or disagree? Why or why not? 5. Explain Ayer‟s distinction between weak and strong verification. Is this distinction tenable? 6. How did Rudolf Carnap attempt to separate science from metaphysics? Explain the role of what Carnap called „C-Rules‟ for this attempt. Was he successful? 7. Explain one criticism of the logical positivist‟s principle of verification? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? 8. Explain the affinities and contrasts between A. J. Ayer‟s logical positivism and Karl Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability. Why does Popper think that scientific progress depends on falsifiability rather than verifiability? What are Popper‟s arguments against verifiability? Do you think Popper is correct? 9. Kuhn argued that Popper neglected what Kuhn calls “normal science.” Does Popper have a reply to Kuhn in his distinction between science and ideology? Explain. 10. Is Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability a solution to the problem of demarcation? Why or why not? Why would Gierre or Kuhn disagree? Explain 11. Kuhn, in his “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” disagrees with Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability as defining the essence of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelian Habitus and the Power of the Embodied Self: Reflections on the Insights Gained from the Fakirs in Bangladesh
    23 Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Volume 17, Number 2. July 2020. Aristotelian Habitus and the Power of the Embodied Self: Reflections on the Insights Gained from the Fakirs in Bangladesh Mohammad Golam Nabi Mozumder1, Abstract: This article traces back classical Greek and Medieval meanings of habitus to show that Bourdieu’s redefinition of habitus discarded a seminal feature of Aristotelian habitus—the power of radically transforming the self at will. I elaborate how the practices of purposefully training the embodied self remains marginalized in Pierre Bourdieu’s re-conceptualization of habitus. Examining Aristotle’s habitus, this paper brings back the focus on the long-neglected insight of the power of deliberately (re)training the self in constructing a heterodox but ethical way of being and socializing. As an example, I refer to the Fakirs in current Bangladesh, who cultivate antinomian life-practices. The main argument of the paper is that habitus in Bourdieu’s formulations is less suitable than Aristotle’s in analysing the praxis of the Fakirs. I suggest that instead of sticking to a universal conceptualization of habitus, sociologists should consider with equal importance both models of habitus articulated by Aristotle and Bourdieu. Doing that could benefit contemporary sociology in two ways: First, Aristotle’s conceptualization of habitus is an important tool in identifying the sociological importance of the praxis of marginalized groups, e.g., Fakirs in Bangladesh; and second, extending the focus of a key sociological concept, i.e., habitus, addresses the apparent disconnect between the wisdom of heterodox practitioners in the Global South and dominant social theories built upon the analyses of European and American social traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel and Aristotle
    HEGEL AND ARISTOTLE ALFREDO FERRARIN Boston University published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, vic 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Alfredo Ferrarin 2001 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2001 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Baskerville 10.25/13 pt. System QuarkXPress™ 4.04 [AG] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ferrarin, Alfredo, 1960– Hegel and Aristotle / Alfredo Ferrarin. p. cm.–(Modern European philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0-521-78314-3 1. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770–1831. 2. Aristotle – Influence. I. Title. II. Series. B2948 .F425 2000 193–dc21 00-029779 ISBN 0 521 78314 3 hardback CONTENTS Acknowledgments page xiii List of Abbreviations xv Introduction 1 § 1. Preliminary Notes 1 § 2. On the Object and Method of This Book 7 § 3. Can Energeia Be Understood as Subjectivity? 15 part i the history of philosophy and its place within the system 1. The Idea of a History of Philosophy 31 § 1. The Lectures on the History of Philosophy: Editions and Sources 31 § 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Corkett a Note on the Aristotelian Origin
    1 A NOTE ON THE ARISTOTELIAN ORIGIN OF POPPER’S DEMARCATION CRITERION TOGETHER WITH ITS APPLICATION TO ATLANTIC CANADA’S FISHERIES Christopher J. Corkett* *Christopher is a retired Instructor from the Biology Department of Dalhousie University. He is currently applying Karl Popper’s non-inductive theory of method to the management of the world’s commercial fisheries. Abstract It has not always been realised that Karl Popper’s demarcation criterion, the criterion he uses to distinguish an empirical science from its ‘metaphysical’ complement involves an interpretation of the classical theory of terms. From the beginning Popper’s criterion never was an attempt to distinguish some subject matter called ‘science’ from some subject matter called ‘metaphysics’. His criterion of falsifiability always was an attempt to distinguish the logical strength of a universal law from the logical weakness of its complement, a complement that can bear no fruit. For example: if the falsifiability criterion is applied to the management of the fisheries of Atlantic Canada we can distinguish the bold and sound management of Atlantic lobster from the weak and unsound management of Atlantic groundfish. In the early 1990s Newfoundland’s fishery for Atlantic cod suffered a major collapse that has become one of the world’s most prominent case studies of failure in fisheries management. Under Popper’s analytic theory of demarcation a weak management with no problem solving potentiality is to be held responsible for the collapse of Newfoundland’s Atlantic cod fishery. 2 1. Introduction Logic is one of the most ancient of all disciplines. It was founded by the Greek scientist and philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) before even the Hellenistic development of mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science
    OBJECTIVITY IN THE FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requisites for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Karen Cordrick Haely, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Louise M. Antony, Adviser Professor Donald C. Hubin _______________________ Professor George Pappas Adviser Philosophy Graduate Program ABSTRACT According to a familiar though naïve conception, science is a rigorously neutral enterprise, free from social and cultural influence, but more sophisticated philosophical views about science have revealed that cultural and personal interests and values are ubiquitous in scientific practice, and thus ought not be ignored when attempting to understand, describe and prescribe proper behavior for the practice of science. Indeed, many theorists have argued that cultural and personal interests and values must be present in science (and knowledge gathering in general) in order to make sense of the world. The concept of objectivity has been utilized in the philosophy of science (as well as in epistemology) as a way to discuss and explore the various types of social and cultural influence that operate in science. The concept has also served as the focus of debates about just how much neutrality we can or should expect in science. This thesis examines feminist ideas regarding how to revise and enrich the concept of objectivity, and how these suggestions help achieve both feminist and scientific goals. Feminists offer us warnings about “idealized” concepts of objectivity, and suggest that power can play a crucial role in determining which research programs get labeled “objective”.
    [Show full text]
  • Easychair Preprint the Indeterminist Objectivity of Quantum Mechanics
    EasyChair Preprint № 3891 The Indeterminist Objectivity of Quantum Mechanics Versus the Determinist Subjectivity of Classical Physics Vasil Penchev EasyChair preprints are intended for rapid dissemination of research results and are integrated with the rest of EasyChair. July 16, 2020 The indeterminist objectivity of quantum mechanics versus the determinist subjectivity of classical physics Vasil Penchev, [email protected] Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology: Dept. of Logic and Philosophy of Science Abstract. Indeterminism of quantum mechanics is considered as an immediate corollary from the theorems about absence of hidden variables in it, and first of all, the Kochen – Specker theorem. The base postulate of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr that it studies the system of an investigated microscopic quantum entity and the macroscopic apparatus described by the smooth equations of classical mechanics by the readings of the latter implies as a necessary condition of quantum mechanics the absence of hidden variables, and thus, quantum indeterminism. Consequently, the objectivity of quantum mechanics and even its possibility and ability to study its objects as they are by themselves imply quantum indeterminism. The so-called free-will theorems in quantum mechanics elucidate that the “valuable commodity” of free will is not a privilege of the experimenters and human beings, but it is shared by anything in the physical universe once the experimenter is granted to possess free will. The analogical idea, that e.g. an electron might possess free will to “decide” what to do, scandalized Einstein forced him to exclaim (in a letter to Max Born in 2016) that he would be а shoemaker or croupier rather than a physicist if this was true.
    [Show full text]
  • Functionalists Write, Too: Frazer/Malinowski and the Semiotics of the Monograph1
    1 Functionalists Write, Too: Frazer/Malinowski and the Semiotics of the Monograph1 James A. Boon What does the ethnographer do? – he writes (Geertz 1973:19). art of the business of anthropology is to make superficially exotic practices appear familiar and superficially familiar practices exotic. PRegardless of how such practices are experienced by observers, they are interpreted by observers in writing: notes, articles, books. That ethnographic description and ethnological comparison occur as writing suggests the fundamental symbolic remove from whatever immediacy or presence anthropological discourse presumes to embody. All varieties of writing are semiotic systems – shifting signs and symbols that stand for (replace, substitute, differ from) what they are conventionally understood to ‘represent’. Moreover, any writing of ethnographic detail and ethnologi- cal generalization in whatever style or format is constrained by sets of rules and values that at their fullest extent we call cultures. Fieldwork – ‘being there’ – offers no exception to these semiotic facts. Fieldwork is not only a way of doing; it is also a device for writing, a format for organizing description, a conceit around which ethnographic discourse revolves. (It was not always so.) At this level fieldwork, despite the fact that it happens, is a ‘fiction’. Cross-cultural interpretation requires outside help, even when fieldwork works. Cultures cannot be penetrated simply with passports, survey sheets, statistics, genealogies, dictionaries; Source: Semiotica, vol. 46, nos. 2/4, 1983, pp. 131–149. 2 CONTEXTS AND CONTROVErsiES or intuition, benign tolerance, indomitable self-confidence, or studious self-effacement (although each of these may occasionally help!). Rather, cross-cultural interpretation must be made to happen; and it is made to happen by means of semiotic operations derived from sources beyond the conditions of fieldwork proper, as narrowly construed in the functio- nalist school.
    [Show full text]