Science and love, music, art, etc. (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, February 23, 2009, 11:39 (5549 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I wrote that in the context of Genesis, George and I prioritize science whereas creationists prioritize the Bible, and it is "the prioritization that forms the subjective basis of our Gestalten." - GEORGE: "Where I disagree with this is that the evolutionist view is not "subjective" it is objective. DHW seems to take the relativist or postmodern view that objectivity is impossible to attain or approach." - Once again you are analysing the example and ignoring the process which the example illustrates. Unfortunately, by doing so you have now entered into a second area of disagreement, but first things first. You believe that science is a more accurate guide to truth than the Bible. A creationist believes the opposite. In your Gestalt, science is foregrounded/prioritized and God is backgrounded (you probably think that God comes nowhere, but that's a different story which we needn't go into here). In the creationist Gestalt, God is foregrounded and science is backgrounded. We are not talking about the subjectivity or objectivity of your different approaches to the origin of life. We are talking about your personal, subjective belief that science is a more accurate guide to "truth". (I share your belief in this instance, and would also prioritize science over the Bible, but that is irrelevant here.) - It's obviously difficult for you to separate the example from the process, but it so happens that you have illustrated the latter perfectly with your next comment: "The same applies to the paranormal and material interpretations of psychological experiences, and the differences between David Turell and myself. I maintain that he is too willing to accept accounts of subjective experiences as evidence, while objectivity requires a more sceptical approach." Your subjectivity could hardly be clearer, introduced as it is by: "I maintain that..." I wouldn't like to put words into David's mouth, and so I will reply for myself: I maintain that you are too willing to dismiss subjective experiences as evidence; objectivity requires a more open-minded approach. Your idea of objectivity is not the same as mine. Both our concepts of objectivity are subjective. This tells us nothing about the truth or even likelihood of the different beliefs. What it tells us is that different beliefs are arrived at by the same process of subjective prioritization. - The second area of disagreement is your insistence that the evolutionist view is objective. That discussion, however, is already going on in the "Evolution" thread, and since David has presented a number of important scientific arguments and references that cast doubt on some aspects of the theory, I'd rather leave it to you and him to fight over that particular claim to objectivity.