|
|
|
|
|
|
by gr33nman
3387 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with your point that objectivity does not exist. Any scientific observation is ultimately a subjective experience. It is only replication of an experiment by others that leads the scientific community to (temporarily) accept it as fact. My point is that there is no reason why we can't apply the scientific method to the subjective experience of our own minds as well. |
|
|
I don't think the first sentence follows from the second one and I doubt that the second sentence is as strong as you may think. Look at any modern physical experiment, the observations are made by apparatuses and transformed many times before a human sees the result on a screen.
How would you argue that you subjectively experiencing numbers on a screen can introduce any [significant] subjectivity into the observed? There is just so much between the observed and the observer.
And even if observations would necessarily be subjective, you would have to explain the consistency of observations between different observers across space and time. But I just realize that I am here more arguing for an objective observer-independent reality than for objective observers but I will keep it anyway.
I also think the somewhat temporary nature of physics has no large bearing on objectivity. We are well aware of measurement errors and the fact that theories are often just approximations. Better measurements or theories rarely make previous results objectively wrong. But I will acknowledge that especially theories with a lot of interpretations in them have a real risk to turn out wrong.