[MD] What is the MOQ?

[Ham Priday]

SA comments of Ham's assertion that ...

> Perceived experience is always differentiated and
> relative to the subject.  Hence, intellectual knowledge,
> and the process of acquiring it, is a subject/object
> phenomenon.

[SA]:
> Yes and no.  s/o, but one of integration exists, too,
> where the categorizing or differentiation by somebody
> doesn't differentiate an event into either s or o.
> I'm referring to the process of s and o not just s or not
> just o.  As you say, your "perceiv(ing) experience" and
> what you differentiate from this experience.  This is a
> process of s and o working together, not just the s or
> the o doing all the work or involved in the experience.

An "event" is a specific happening in a specific place.  This is the object 
of experience, and it is differentiated from other events and by the fact 
that it is experienced by individual subjects.  You say that intellectual 
knowledge "can be one of integration, too," but can you suggest an example 
of an "integrated" concept, principle, or fact of knowledge?  Even Pirsig's 
Quality is perceived as Goodness, Truth, Excellence, or Rightness, relative 
to something else.

[Ham]:
> Subjectivity is rejected by Science.  Scientific methodology
> focuses entirely on objective data as interpreted by the intellect.

[SA]:
> No it's not, says who?  Scientists know it is their subjectivity
> in collaboration that decides how science will be interpreted.
> Scientists are well aware of their methodology, their subjectivity,
> may not be understanding the objective data that well, so
> therefore, they do more tests, and ask others in different
> geographies to do these tests.  The more the same interpretation
> is the outcome, the more reliable these interpretations become.
> Philosophers sit with scientists in meetings and forums to help
> discuss and sharpen the interpretation of data.

I think a group of scientific researchers meeting with philosophers would be 
a very rare event, unless it was to discuss the "philosophy of science". 
The repetition of experiments you speak of is part of the scientific method. 
It ensures that the conclusions reached by the original investigator are 
confirmed universally.  But that's not a subjective discussion; they're all 
performing the same experiment under the same controlled conditions.  That's 
what makes it "objective".

A number of scientists, including Stephen Gould and Nicholas Maxwell have 
recently pressed for a more "socially oriented" approach to Science, but 
they are few in number and tend to be authors and professors rather than 
practicing scientists.  I found this summary of the 'The Scientific Method", 
which is more typical of this discipline:

"The Scientific Method, through its testing of hypotheses, invites a kind of 
certainty absent from other approaches to knowledge, a universal validity 
that is not culture-bound.  Anyone from any culture can perform the same 
experiment and get identical results.  As long as we abide rigorously by the 
Scientific Method, we have a reliable way to distinguish fact from 
superstition, an intellectual razor that cuts through layers of cultural 
belief to get at the objective truth underneath.  Finally, we are free from 
the bonds of subjectivity, the personal and cultural limits to 
understanding."

Regards,
Ham