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

On 19 Feb 2013, at 22:05, Brett Hall wrote:

> 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.
>

I agree.
By definition science is objective, and doubtable. We can't use  
subjectivity when doing science, except when we do observation, but  
that is why we asks for repeatable experiments with different team,  
etc. This explain why in the scientific study of science, we have to  
tackle subjectivity with the scientific method (agreeing on  
hypotheses, and making explicit the rules of reasoning, etc.).

This should not prevent science to study subject as object, and this  
with the same "objective" criterion. It means on the contrary that the  
subject has to be part of fundamental scientific inquiries.

Bruno




>
> 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]
>
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





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