Keith A. McGuinness wrote:
> In article <339109B1.2
...@aznet.net>, wollm
...@aznet.net wrote:
> > Although the original goal of positivist-based science was the
> >establishment of comprehensive theory grounded in the certainty of
> >observation statements, by the 1950s it was relatively clear that
> >positivism had failed (Polkinghorne, 1983). There is now almost uniform
> >agreement that the goal of absolute certainty of knowledge is untenable
> >since observations do not produce "facts" that are independent of an
> >observer's interpretation. Even what we take to be objective facts are
> >largely constructs, as the Latin factum, "that which is made", reminds
> >us.
> > Observations invariably presuppose some theory about the phenomenon
> >under study. The presumption of different theories will likely give rise to
> >different observations, i.e. to different "facts". The process is
> >recursive since the explanations we construct to explain the nature of
> >the phenomena we observe are actually indicative of our commitment to a
> >particular view of reality. Observations cannot prove a theory because
> >the theory itself influences what can be observed; i.e., attempts to
> >prove a theory unavoidably involve circular reasoning. Harman (1988)
> >concludes that science is but a "cultural artifact", i.e., a way (not
> >the way) of knowing, which conforms to certain presuppositions about the
> >nature of reality. What one considers knowledge is relative to one's
> >worldview.
> >There can be no absolute point of view outside of one's historical and
> >cultural situation. Theories are merely instruments for organizing
> >perceptions; they help to shape what is observed, what is considered
> >factual and relevant, and what meanings can be constructed. All
> >knowledge,in effect, is "theory laden".
> Far be it from me to criticise something just on the basis of the
> source. But, according to Ed, the source of the above was:
> >Unaltered from "From Paradigm to Method in Astrological Research"
> >by Glenn Perry, Ph.D.
> This, and similar arguments, depend largely on the the supposed
> "theory dependence of observations". But, as Chalmers ("What is this
> thing called science" and "Science and its fabrication"; the latter an
> unfortunate title in my view) demonstrates, these critics overstate
> their case very greatly.
Well I guess Einstein the astrologer had that in mind when he said
"It is the thoery that determines what we can observe."
or Kuhn the astrologer when he said;
"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
education. Anomalys are disregarded because they do not articulate the
paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
Or Amit Goswami Ph D Physicist/astrologer when he said
Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
way things are or must be. That assumption is the very thing that Amit
Goswami, with the assistance of Richard E. Reed and Maggie Gos-
wami, brings into question in the book you are about to read. For this
assumption, like its cloudy predecessors of the century before, seems
to
be signaling not only the end of a century but the end of science as we
know it. That assumption is that there exists, "out there," a real,
objective reality.
This objective reality is something solid; it is made up of things that
have attributes, such as mass, electrical charge, momentum, angular
momentum, spin, position in space, and continuous existence through
time expressed as inertia, energy, and going even deeper into the
microworld, such attributes as strangeness, charm, and color. And yet
the clouds still gather. For in spite of all that we know about the
objective world, even with its twists and turns of space into time into
matter, and the black clouds called black holes, with all of our
rational
minds working at full steam ahead, we are still left with a flock of
mysteries, paradoxes, and puzzle pieces that simply do not fit.
But we physicists are a stubborn lot, and we fear the proverbial toss
of
the baby out with che bathwater. We still lather and shave our faces
watching carefully as we use Occam's razor to make sure that we cut
away all superfluous "hairy assumptions." What are these clouds that
obscure the end of the twentieth century's abstract art form? They boil
down to one sentence:
The universe does not seem to exist without a
perceiver of that universe.
Well, at some level this certainly makes sense. Even the word "uni-
verse" is a human construct. So it would make some kind of sense that
what we call the universe depends on our word-making capacity as
human beings. But is this observation any deeper than a simple ques-
tion of semantics? For example, before there were human beings, was
there a universe? It would seem that there was. Before we discovered
the atomic nature of matter, were there atoms around? Again, logic
dictates that the laws of nature, forces and causes, etc., even though
we
didn't know about such things as atoms and subatomic particles, cer
tainly had to exist.
But it is just these assumptions about objective reality that have been
called into question by our present understanding of physics. Take, for
example, a simple particle, the electron. Is it a little speck of
matter? It
turns out that to assume that it is such, consistently behaving itself
as
such, is clearly wrong. For at times it appears to be a cloud made up
of
an infinite number of possible electrons that "appear" as a single
particle when and only when we observe one. Furthermore, when it is
not a single particle it appears to be an undulating wavelike cloud
that
is capable of moving at speeds in excess of light speed, totally
contra-
dicting the Einstein concern that nothing material can move faster
than light. But Einstein's worry is assuaged, for when it moves this
way
it is not actually a piece of matter
Take as another example the interaction between two electrons. Ac-
cording to quantum physics, even though the two electrons may be vast
distances apart, the results of observations carried out upon them
indicate that there must be some connection between them that allows
communication to move faster than light. Yet before those observations,
before a conscious observer made up his or her mind, even the form of
the connection was totally indeterminate. And as a third example, a
quantum system such as an electron in a bound physical state appears
to be in an indeterminate state, and yet the indeterminacy can be
analyzed into component certainties that somehow add to the original
uncertainty. Then along comes an observer who, like some gigantic
Alexander chopping the Gordian knot, resolves the uncertainty into a
single, definite but unpredictable state simply by observing the elec-
tron.
Not only that, the blow of the sword could come in the future
determining what state the electron is in now. For we have now even the
possibility that observations in the present legitimately determine
what
we can say was the past.
Thus we have come to the end of a road once again. There is too
much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that
the objective world-one that is running forward in time like a clock,
one that says action at a distance, particularly instantaneous action
at a
distance, is not possible, one that says a thing cannot be in two or
more
places at the same time-is an illusion of our thinking.
Amit Goswami Ph.D. (Physics) "Self Aware Universe"
> The significance of observations may be influenced by theory, as may
> the "interpretation" (although that is a vague word, open to
> mis-interpretation). But the observations themselves are NOT
> determined by the theory: nature (i.e. the real world, or whatever you
> want to call it) determines the observations.
Wrong, there is no one "real world".
> At this point some-one might say: "Okay, but the observers who collect
> those observations may be fallible". Indeed, individual observers may
> be, and sometimes are, fallible or deluded. But eventually this is
> discovered and corrected.
SNIP
Perhaps the strict empiricist (cynical) believers such as yourself
overemphasise the validity and value of this "real world" you believe
in?
Here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
--
Or perhaps these astrologers (not) were overemphasising the same point
because they were mistaken?
"You can always claim that everything you percieve is real because there
exists a larger system which collapses when you see into reality by
'measuring' or 'observing' it." Paul Davies "Reality and Modern Science"
"Science will be the formalized creation of a process. One of the
methodologies for viewing the self. One of the methodologies for
recognizing the vibrational patterns of energy that are differentiated
out of the unbroken wholeness."
Bashar "The New Metaphysics"
"A centrally relevant change in the descriptive order required by
quantum theory is thus the dropping of the notion of analysis of the
world into relatively autonomous parts, separately existant but in
interaction. Rather, the primary emphasis is now on UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS,
in which the observing instrument is not separated from what is
observed." David Bohm "Wholeness and The Implicate Order"
"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on
observations, not theories... I have never come across
anyone who carries this profession into practice...
Observation is not sufficient...theory has an important
share in determining belief."
Arthur Eddington (astronomer)
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
