Ohm-Kirchhoff / Epistemology / Teachers

Good idea for a thread, Chumly.

I do believe objective knowledge is possible, but epistemology also covers subjective knowledge.

Fresco is better at epistemology than I am. I believe Fresco once argued that scientific facts can be subjective. I hope he posts here to confirm or deny what I said. In any case, Fresco probably has a fuller explanation.

You called....

The real issue is to eliminate the terms "subjectivity-objectivity". These represent a dualistic scenario in which "we" appear to be separate from "an external world". The point is that neither can be characterized except in terms of the other. "Physical laws" are so stated because of our specifically human motivation to attempt to predict and control agreed "features of the world" relative to human needs. Such agreement is a function of our common physiological apparatus but even our descriptions of that are subject to the same "need to control".

In short, our being and the described world are inseparable.
Neither has "existence" in its own right. We need only to consider "the world" through the physiology of another species, or for humans universally lacking same one of "the senses" to understand this. (A key word here is "description" and its relationship to socialization and internalization of group paradigms through "language" but this merely embellishes the main attack on duality).

The scientists/thinkers who have come closest to struggling with this directly are Kant, Piaget and Maturana. (Kant started out as a physicist BTW). Other scientists (notably the QM guys) have explored the "physical implications" (e.g. non-locality) but have consciously avoided getting into a potential philosophical quagmire. Fritjof Capra is perhaps an exception to this.

Late Googling on that last point...

Anton Zeilinger a current "interested scientist" stated this year

Ah...I note that you asked for threads as opposed to references.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=109523

Wandeljw distinguishes between objective and subjective knowledge as do most people: "I do believe objective knowledge is possible, but epistemology also covers subjective knowledge."

I wonder if "objective knowledge" is different from knowledge-without-a-knower and if "subjective knowledge" is a mental representation of the world unconstrained by that world.
Frankly, today is one of those blurry times when I rely on Fresco for light on this general topic.

I am blurry on this topic at all times, JLN. (I like epistemology, but I haven't read and studied enough. I have difficulty understanding Kant.)

JLN

I think part of the "blurring" comes from our concept of "knowledge" as a commodity which we can exchange like material goods. This "exchange" between individuals implies an "objectivity" independent of subjects, but such knowledge" is still species or culture specific just as "software" is specific to a particular platform. In that sense also "the individual" is subservient to "the group" in ontological terms, i.e. the "platform" of a common linguistic paradigm (working on common physiological "hardware") is a prerequisite for the disemination of "knowlege".

In essence all knowlege is "constrained" as soon as it is described.
If "subjective knowledge" involves "internal dialogue" then it is constrained.

wandeljw

Very simplistically......Kant saw the observer as being pre-programmed with perceptual subroutines like "causal thinking" which produce the internal or "phenomenal" (internal) world from the "noumenal" (external) world which could never be accessed directly. Maturana, however, operates at the level of non-duality in which descriptions of either "worlds" are epiphenomena of "languaging" which is a species specific sub-aspect of the general "life" process for all species.

Thanks. That helps. I like the notion of "knowledge" as an exchangeable commodity. It's much like the painting that is sold without any shared subjective sense of its aesthetic value for the interactants. We want people to understand our "knowledge" as they "buy (into) it." But one wonders: I buy so much what of you say, but I am not as sure as I would like to be that my understanding of your formulations are the same as yours. Understanding--like beauty--must be more than mere commodity, an external object of exchange.
I'm not sure that's clear.

Thanks gentle posters!

What DOES seem to be the case to/for me is that "knowledge" is neither objective nor subjective, or it is both. But it is not one or the other. "Objective" and "subjective" are riders we attach to our propositions concerning reality. They are ideas about our thoughts. Are THEY also objective or subjective?

Thoughts once expressed may be deemed become "objective" in the sense that "self2" is observing an output from "self1". The issue is that "selves" are essentially snapshots of "states" with all the characteristics of states of "other persons" plus the added privilege of "internal dialogue". So "subjectivity-objectivity" is a reflection of that grey region "private-public".

I am going to relay this to my teaching compatriot to see how he feels about Kirchhoff's circuit laws and/or Ohm’s Law in the context of this discussion.

Me, it seems to depend what mood I am in as to how concrete I perceive the proofs of the scientific method to be. At the very least I would claim it's the best we have given that Kirchhoff's circuit laws and/or Ohm’s Law is demonstrable.

If anyone want to argue "demonstrable" I'll listen.

Yes, Fresco, "objects" and 'subjects" are mutually generating/dependent/defining. A single complex.

I really appreciate the clarity with which fresco can convey these tricky subjects...

Yes indeed.

We collectively find "sense" :wink:

And he is gracious too.

Or perhaps we collectively make sense....

If we find it, then it's already there to be found...

Splitting hairs now, but I am wondering about how you guys see this:

Sense, since that is the word we're using now... Do we make it, or do we uncover it?

Great question, Cyracuz. I tend to think that all "knowledge" is social construction--this is Fresco's collective-creation-of-sense, I suppose. Nevertheless, the degrees of freedom we enjoy in constructing reality is not boundless. We do exist and operate within--indeed, as expressions of--a larger Reality, and this sets limits on what we can accept as truth, depending on our purposes. Technological "truths" are tested by the physical consequences of technical "knowledge" (does the bridge collapse or hold up? Is the cancer cured?, etc), or philosophical "truths" (does the theoretical model satisfy logical and intuitive criteria?). These "objective" constraints do not, however, operate completely apart from our cultural capacity to create goals and models, i.e., the "rules" that shape our truth-seeking efforts. My "world" is a pattern of understandings shaped primarily by learned cultural-linguistic dispositions.
There's a lot that I've left out, or should have left out, in the above statement. I leave it to you and others to address them.