Re: Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* ! (interesting links)

On 20/02/2013, at 7:21, "JAG" <jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:

> Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
> 
Do you think that scientific matters should be adjudicated by voting? What if we took a vote about, say, the evolution of life? Holding such a poll, in some places, would make the Earth 6000 years old. Should we vote on the efficacy of homeopathic remedies? Some doctors may then be required to prescribe them.
> 
> A Snapshot of Foundational *Attitudes* Toward Quantum Mechanics
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
> 
> Can we see now, why EVERYTHING depends on attitude/meaning/justification/explanation?
> 
> Can we see now that we can NOT have an *objective* SCIENCE since all method amd measurements are done and evaluated by *subjective* processes/experiences (in short, by ourselves)?
> 
Do you distinguish between the epistemological objective/subjective distinction and the ontological one?

Science is about objects, for the most part. There doesn't seem to be much subjective science.

On the other hand, that the Earth is not 6000 years old is not the result of mere parochial bias. It is simply the case given our best understanding of the world.

If there is no epistemic objectivity to science, then are all opinions equally valid? If so...how does progress happen? Why do we have iPhones now and none 2000 years ago? 

Or have we discovered that some theories are, objectively speaking, better than others? Indeed, have we, objectively, shown some to be false?
> 
> Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/science? is it possible?
> 
What does "complementary" mean? Can it mean something other than "contradictory"?
> 
> what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
> 
Relativism.
> 
> ;)
> 
> 
:D

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]