[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Michael Hamilton]

Hi Ian,

> Hi Mike, Bo made the similar point ...
>
> Would that a few such philosophers were really so powerful, but the
> important angle is this, I believe.
>
> If "we" undemined objective enquiry completely that would be a
> disaster - agreed.

Yes, although I wasn't aiming so much at any of us on the MD. I was
referring to the US administration's blatant disregard for objective
truth and the "reality-based universe". And they have far more
capacity to instigate disaster than any of us.

> Pragmatically, as I've said many times, subjects, objects, newtonian
> physics, are just fine for much of daily life, and will probably
> remain so. "Objective Scientific Method" will remain central to
> advancing "scientific" knowledge, whatever the domain, as far as I can
> tell.

I'm fine with this, although I'd like to stress that "objectivity"
applies to more than just ol' Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics is
objectively true also, even more so than Newtonian physics, no? It's
just that this 'new' objectivity recognises the inevitable
participation of the experimentor, the scientist, the subject, in the
overall picture.

> What needs undermining is the idea that this kind of objectivity has
> exclusive rights to advancing knowledge, rational enquiry and
> justifying decisions in all and any domains. There is no domain in
> REAL life (scientific or otherwsise) which is governed entirely by a
> SOMist metaphysics. We need a working model which has subjects and
> objects and objectivity in their rightful place, not as the fundaments
> of metaphysics.

Thoroughly agree.

> We must not throw baby out with the bathwater.
> That's not just dangerous, it's criminally low quality.
> A more subtle mode of change is called for.
>
> Softee, softlee, catchee monkee - as I may have said.
> Sorry, but I'm pasionate about this aspect :-)

No apology necessary!

Oh, and thanks for the interesting link.

Regards,
Mike