denekin
Jedi
I have no idea where this post belongs on the forum.
Moderators please put it wherever it should be...
My dilemma: Subjectivity and Objectivity
Let me introduce this topic by pointing out that so far reading definitions of Subjectivity and Objectivity have not clarified my understanding. I should also confess that this is something of a rant, and that I started it several years ago and have politely kept hidden it as a draft.
I want to present a series of experiences that I come back to over and over again that illustrate my dilemma. I suspect that doing so will bring up other ideas I trip over, like rationality and irrationality.
I spent half my childhood in France and half in the United States. Our family doctor in France was a french man who was born and raised outside of Hanoi, when Vietnam was still a French colony. He started his training in Traditional Chinese medicine when he was twelve. At eighteen he returned to France where he attended the Sorbonne and went on to become a doctor. He then returned to Vietnam where he continued his training in TCM until Vietnam gained its independence. As a patient of his I and my siblings and parents were treated with acupuncture with consistently good results.
Upon returning to the United States, our family doctor (Harvard educated: bow down bow down!) informed me that my belief in acupuncture was “purely subjective” as there was no scientific validation of acupuncture. Any benefits that appeared to accrue from my acupuncture sessions were due to the placebo effect. In the mid-1970s, Western Science had done enough research on acupuncture to validate it. At that point, did my subjective appraisal of acupuncture become objective? The question strikes me as absurd but it begs to be asked. Are my beliefs merely subjective if I cannot find scientific “objective” verification of them, but those same ideas become objective if and when scientific verification arrives on the scene? Were our Harvard doctor’s views initially objective but became subjective? Was he granted an objective status just because of his scientific training, even though he had no experience with acupuncture in any circumstance? Absurd questions that beg to be asked.
My observation is that the terms “subjective” and “objective” by implication translate to “delusional” and “true”. Bear with me, if you have the patience to...( Implicative Communication is a huge subject in itself.)
I became involved with Transcendental Meditation in 1970. A few years later Herbert Benson published his research on meditators and meditation. In reading his research, it occurred to me that I was spending a lot of time in Theta states. This struck me as strange as I saw little evidence that I was particularly gifted as a meditator, and yet Theta states are considered “deeper” than alpha. It wasn’t until 1976 that I actually went into a lab and had my meditation monitored and, indeed, I was Theta prone.
http://www.brainwavesblog.com/tag/theta-waves/
Was my appraisal subjective before it was verified, but objective after being verified?
This article about Dr. Amen’s work brings up the objective/subjective dilemma well:
http://www.healthcentral.com/adhd/c/1443/135240/dr-amen-types-adhd/
In scientific literature, especially in the field of psychology, reference is often made to “subjective evaluation”…the implication is that by virtue of apparent subjectivity, my conclusions are necessarily false.
Now to the epistemological dilemma: when I quote a scientific study, when I state what has supposedly been scientifically proven, do I give evidence of objectivity? In my case, I would argue surely not. I am not a scientist, and a great deal of data that I can pull out of my memory banks may well be true, but I see little evidence that I have real and stable understanding. In other words, what I may say is true in this or that field may well be true, but am I true with it? In other words, can’t my reliance on “science” function as mere superstition?
The healer, Hugh MacKimmie healed people of cancer (http://www.amazon.com/Presence-Angels-A-Healers-Life/dp/0977054543). I knew him and watched his career from 1973 until his death a few years ago. I know of no scientific study of his work. When I make the statement that he cured people of cancer, is that statement untrue because it is not scientifically verified? Is it “merely” subjective? In 1974, a friend of mine confided in me that she had a huge lump in her left breast. We went to see the Dowser turned Healer, Wayne Cook, in Salinas. The tumor, which she was terrified of having biopsied, was the size of a small apple. In the course of a twenty minute session with him, it shrank before our eyes to the size of a lentil. She is still alive, in her mid-seventies and that lentil is still there. She is in perfect health. I cannot prove to you that that event took place. Are the facts of this case not objective facts because they have not been proven?
We don’t have a hard science of Ethics, or Aesthetics, and outside of the Hard Sciences, even of Epistemology. That being said, I can trump any ethical argument you come up with “Prove It!” You cannot prove to me that I shouldn’t steal your car. You can only give me compelling arguments. Now, here on this forum, I suspect we know that this is an absurd argument. We know that it is Objectively True that I shouldn’t steal your car, or anyone else’s. And yet, there is no hard science of Ethics. If I say, “That’s a beautiful piece of music”, you can respond with, “That’s a subjective evaluation.” Really? I can see how it might well be purely subjective, but why is it not purely objective? Again, we can come up with compelling arguments, but no proofs. I think when people throw out the labels "subjective and objective", they are often trying to derail or support the point at hand. The word subjective often implies a lack of validity whereas the word objective implies inherent validity. So, I can make my case stronger by saying that it comes from objectivity. Or, I can diminish/undermine your case by saying "that's purely subjective".
As a small tangent, I have always held that Carlos Casteneda was at least as much of a novelist as he was an anthological journalist. You have every right to claim that that is a subjective evaluation. Does that mean it is not objective fact? Is that a stupid question?
Can I point out that scientists often have ragingly subjective motives for holding to an objective truth? What does that do to Objectivity?
Now, I hope you can read this and understand that I am not indulging in Hippy New Age sentimentality: The conclusion I have drawn is that my subjectivity is always as objective as it is, and my objectivity is always as subjective as it is. this is NOT a feel good, groovy proposition: It is a never ending challenge to my assumptions, my propositions, and my preferences, and certainly to my perpetual belief (wishful thinking) that conclusions I find appealing are true.
Let me end with this question: Is your response to this post rational?
Or is your response to this post a reflection of a rationale? You can use the premises of Freud, Jung, Reich, L Ron Hubbard, Gurdjieff, etc etc, to interpret and evaluate my ideas. Each of these thinkers have given us rationales for interpreting what goes on around us. You can come up with an interpretation of me which is cogent, coherent, totally academically plausible and completely wrong. When are we truly rational? And objective?
Thank you for wading through this meandering epistle.
Moderators please put it wherever it should be...
My dilemma: Subjectivity and Objectivity
Let me introduce this topic by pointing out that so far reading definitions of Subjectivity and Objectivity have not clarified my understanding. I should also confess that this is something of a rant, and that I started it several years ago and have politely kept hidden it as a draft.
I want to present a series of experiences that I come back to over and over again that illustrate my dilemma. I suspect that doing so will bring up other ideas I trip over, like rationality and irrationality.
I spent half my childhood in France and half in the United States. Our family doctor in France was a french man who was born and raised outside of Hanoi, when Vietnam was still a French colony. He started his training in Traditional Chinese medicine when he was twelve. At eighteen he returned to France where he attended the Sorbonne and went on to become a doctor. He then returned to Vietnam where he continued his training in TCM until Vietnam gained its independence. As a patient of his I and my siblings and parents were treated with acupuncture with consistently good results.
Upon returning to the United States, our family doctor (Harvard educated: bow down bow down!) informed me that my belief in acupuncture was “purely subjective” as there was no scientific validation of acupuncture. Any benefits that appeared to accrue from my acupuncture sessions were due to the placebo effect. In the mid-1970s, Western Science had done enough research on acupuncture to validate it. At that point, did my subjective appraisal of acupuncture become objective? The question strikes me as absurd but it begs to be asked. Are my beliefs merely subjective if I cannot find scientific “objective” verification of them, but those same ideas become objective if and when scientific verification arrives on the scene? Were our Harvard doctor’s views initially objective but became subjective? Was he granted an objective status just because of his scientific training, even though he had no experience with acupuncture in any circumstance? Absurd questions that beg to be asked.
My observation is that the terms “subjective” and “objective” by implication translate to “delusional” and “true”. Bear with me, if you have the patience to...( Implicative Communication is a huge subject in itself.)
I became involved with Transcendental Meditation in 1970. A few years later Herbert Benson published his research on meditators and meditation. In reading his research, it occurred to me that I was spending a lot of time in Theta states. This struck me as strange as I saw little evidence that I was particularly gifted as a meditator, and yet Theta states are considered “deeper” than alpha. It wasn’t until 1976 that I actually went into a lab and had my meditation monitored and, indeed, I was Theta prone.
http://www.brainwavesblog.com/tag/theta-waves/
Was my appraisal subjective before it was verified, but objective after being verified?
This article about Dr. Amen’s work brings up the objective/subjective dilemma well:
http://www.healthcentral.com/adhd/c/1443/135240/dr-amen-types-adhd/
In scientific literature, especially in the field of psychology, reference is often made to “subjective evaluation”…the implication is that by virtue of apparent subjectivity, my conclusions are necessarily false.
Now to the epistemological dilemma: when I quote a scientific study, when I state what has supposedly been scientifically proven, do I give evidence of objectivity? In my case, I would argue surely not. I am not a scientist, and a great deal of data that I can pull out of my memory banks may well be true, but I see little evidence that I have real and stable understanding. In other words, what I may say is true in this or that field may well be true, but am I true with it? In other words, can’t my reliance on “science” function as mere superstition?
The healer, Hugh MacKimmie healed people of cancer (http://www.amazon.com/Presence-Angels-A-Healers-Life/dp/0977054543). I knew him and watched his career from 1973 until his death a few years ago. I know of no scientific study of his work. When I make the statement that he cured people of cancer, is that statement untrue because it is not scientifically verified? Is it “merely” subjective? In 1974, a friend of mine confided in me that she had a huge lump in her left breast. We went to see the Dowser turned Healer, Wayne Cook, in Salinas. The tumor, which she was terrified of having biopsied, was the size of a small apple. In the course of a twenty minute session with him, it shrank before our eyes to the size of a lentil. She is still alive, in her mid-seventies and that lentil is still there. She is in perfect health. I cannot prove to you that that event took place. Are the facts of this case not objective facts because they have not been proven?
We don’t have a hard science of Ethics, or Aesthetics, and outside of the Hard Sciences, even of Epistemology. That being said, I can trump any ethical argument you come up with “Prove It!” You cannot prove to me that I shouldn’t steal your car. You can only give me compelling arguments. Now, here on this forum, I suspect we know that this is an absurd argument. We know that it is Objectively True that I shouldn’t steal your car, or anyone else’s. And yet, there is no hard science of Ethics. If I say, “That’s a beautiful piece of music”, you can respond with, “That’s a subjective evaluation.” Really? I can see how it might well be purely subjective, but why is it not purely objective? Again, we can come up with compelling arguments, but no proofs. I think when people throw out the labels "subjective and objective", they are often trying to derail or support the point at hand. The word subjective often implies a lack of validity whereas the word objective implies inherent validity. So, I can make my case stronger by saying that it comes from objectivity. Or, I can diminish/undermine your case by saying "that's purely subjective".
As a small tangent, I have always held that Carlos Casteneda was at least as much of a novelist as he was an anthological journalist. You have every right to claim that that is a subjective evaluation. Does that mean it is not objective fact? Is that a stupid question?
Can I point out that scientists often have ragingly subjective motives for holding to an objective truth? What does that do to Objectivity?
Now, I hope you can read this and understand that I am not indulging in Hippy New Age sentimentality: The conclusion I have drawn is that my subjectivity is always as objective as it is, and my objectivity is always as subjective as it is. this is NOT a feel good, groovy proposition: It is a never ending challenge to my assumptions, my propositions, and my preferences, and certainly to my perpetual belief (wishful thinking) that conclusions I find appealing are true.
Let me end with this question: Is your response to this post rational?
Or is your response to this post a reflection of a rationale? You can use the premises of Freud, Jung, Reich, L Ron Hubbard, Gurdjieff, etc etc, to interpret and evaluate my ideas. Each of these thinkers have given us rationales for interpreting what goes on around us. You can come up with an interpretation of me which is cogent, coherent, totally academically plausible and completely wrong. When are we truly rational? And objective?
Thank you for wading through this meandering epistle.
