[MD] S/O and Morality

[Platt Holden]

>     I wrote in Jan 5:
> 
>   Science is not primarily concerned with facts; its main concern is
>   with theories; new  facts are   a concern insofar as, when  confronted
>   with existing theories, better ones may be formulated.In other language,
>   scientists main concern is 'weaving'   various intellectual patterns;
>   patterns that are essentially dynamic and
>    that (hopefully) will some day merge into one. It might be said that a
>    theory is primarily a form of insight, i.e. a way of looking at the world
>    , and not a form of knowledge of how the world is (David Bohm).
> 
>   ======== 
>   To which Platt commented on Jan 10: 
> 
>    I disagree. Theories are indeed important in science. But without facts
>    to test the theories, the theories are useless. The two go together like
>    subjects and objects -- theories being subjective, facts objective.   
> 
>   ========== 
> 
>     I wouldn't say that "facts are objective" but rather that scientists
>     presume that facts may be objectively observed. This is indeed a
>     sweeping assumption. 
> 
>    A countless number of things is constantly happening in this world of
>    ours, from this countless number a scientist may select one and proceed
>    to observe it in detail; only then it might become "a fact". The key word
>    here is ' selection'. By ways of example:
> 
>      An astronomer is busily looking through his telescope. He's not just
>      looking around haphazardly to see whatever is happening in the sky that
>      particular night, he's 'looking for' something specific, something that
>      could be relevant to the theory or topic that interests him. If he's
>      lucky enough to find one of those phenomena, he'll observe it carefully
>      and record it.   After this selection and recording, and after painful
>      corroboration, whatever he thought he observed, could be called a fact.
> 
>        Pretty much the same could be said about a fellow that busies himself
>        observing into a cloud chamber. From the countless things that his
>        elementary particles may be doing at any time, he 'selects'    
>   just the one that interests him, say two positrons colliding
>   enthusiastically, and again, after painful corroboration, it may become a
>   fact. 
> 
>        From this two examples I hope it is clear that the astronomer or
>        nuclear physicist, or any other scientist,is conscious that
>        establishing a fact is a process in which they have actively mingled,
>        so that the process of some event becoming a fact can hardly be
>        thought as 'objective'. 
> 
>     Where objectivity really enters into the picture is in the scientists
>     belief that whatever happened (and, if it happened) was not altered,
>     modified, because of being observed. This is another sweeping assumption
>     which, as we all know, was criticized from within (another good point
>     for Science) largely by 'the facts' on which Quantum Theory was
>     proposed, nearly a century ago. 
> 
>       Interestingly enough, Prof. Collingwood used to express the same views
>       about the so-called 'historical facts': Among the countless events
>       that happened at a particular moment in time, the historian, 'selects'
>       just the one that interests him; only when fitted inside his
>       narrative, whatever happened and, if it happened,becomes an historical
>       fact. 

As you rightfully point out, there is a subjective element involved in 
every claim of a fact. That's one reason why I for one reject the subject-
object division so prevalent in today's thinking, preferring the more 
realistic static-Dynamic morality division offered by Pirsig. But science 
is still captivated by the subject-object divided world, considering facts 
to be independent of any personal bias.  

Platt