the four right chords can make me cry

typed out a really long post for my discussion forum. why waste it?

The Subjectivity of Science

Our understanding of the world has always been coloured by our own subjective point of view. Even Science, which is (seemingly) all about objectiveness and empirical, quantifiable results. Before you call me crazy, let me try to explain what i mean (thoughts kinda jumbled up now).

In the Kauffman article, Science is contrasted with the belief in a God. Faith is portrayed as quaint, noble but misguided at best, and pedantic and restrictive to progress at its worst. Science is portrayed slightly more positively, as what cast us out of paradise, but also a sort of enlightenment. (which is quite ironic, now that i think about it)

In the course of Western history, the belief in God has faced 3 challenges from Science. 1) The Copernican Revolution 2) The Newtonian Revolution 3) The Darwinian Revolution. And each time, faith "made accomodations". After being displaced from the centre of the universe by Copernicus and when Newton dispelled the notion of the stars and tides moving by divine intervention, it was imagined that a hierachy existed, with Man at it's pinnacle. Creation science and the belief in "timeless laws of form" are cited as reactions to Darwinism.

What is the trend here? In Pre-Copernican times, the assumption was that there was a Creator, and Science and research proceeded along those lines. In other words, a belief (subjective) shaped the course of Science. {this is a side point: It produced some erroneous and silly conclusions, yes, but it also produced a lot of fundamental science that we use today. More importantly, it produced enough of the basics to allow Copernicus to make his discovery.} In the same vein, the belief that human beings were the "pinnacle of creation" led Darwinian scientists to think about phylogeny and taxonomy in a certain way before the advent of genetics.

What you see is what you get? No. What you see is what you want to see. True not only in Science, but manifestly obvious in human relationships. Think of prejudice, no matter what the person is really like, if you are prejudiced against him/her, you will only be able to see whats bad.

I suggest two reasons for why Science can be subjective: 1)science is in the making and 2)science is a tool that rests in the hands of human beings, subjective beings.

1) science in the making: like pre-Copernican, pre-Newtonian, pre-Darwinian people, we still do not have a complete understanding of the world, life, everything. Just as certain beliefs shaped their understanding in the past, our understanding is shaped by what we believe now, which may or may not be right. If one of us comes up with a revolutionary new understanding of the world in the distant future, the Science we are living in now might be called pre-Rebeccan. (ego trip =p)

2) science, though in itself an objective method, is nothing but a tool that rests in the hands of us subjective human beings. the trick lies in the fact that the data and information produced by Science has to be interpreted, and by human beings, of all things, so subjective and changeable.

Margulis and Sagan bring up the thing about "pinnacle of creation" again. They seem to think it ridiculous, and prefer to see life as something highly interdependent, a complex network rather than a linear hierachy. To me, this new belief which has led to a deeper understanding of the microcosm is nothing surprising. As a result of an increasingly globalised world, people have begun to change the way they think about things. We are more and more aware of the connectedness of peoples, economies, nations, ecologies. And we take these ideas of interdependence, mix them with ideals of harmony, and apply them to Science.

So does subjectivity advance Science as well as hinder it? Room for discussion!

posted by beckyboo @ 10:08 PM