what is "objectivity"?
Patricia M. Schwarz
I have copied these three paragraphs from Evelyn Fox Keller's book
on gender and science. This material is from the chapter on dynamic
objectivity, in the section on the development of autonomy in children and
the formation of gender differences based on cultural ideals of parenting.
The complex process by which Western science encodes the historical
religious hostility towards women as "enemies of the truth" and deliberate
deceivers of Male rationality that was prevalent during the early days
of mechanical philosophy and the formation of (Western) institutionalized
science depends on the adoption of static objectivity as the prevailing
definition of "objectivity."
I myself adopted this outlook during my indoctrination into physics
as an undergraduate, but it is a pretty unsatisfying way to think -
especially for a woman, because somehow the seminal misogyny in this ideal
manages to become manifest in the fine print, the subtleties of vocabulary -
a little phallologism here, a little exclusionary language there, a
lot of unaknowledged male-bonding habits determining professional opinions
everywhere.
Looking back, I understand why I loved one class more than any other -
it was the "Quantum Mechanics in this Particular Universe" class given
by Gell-Mann, who is one of the few physicists I have met who really
expresses the dynamic notion of objectivity. Perhaps because he is so
sensitive to so many different cultural traditions...who knows?
But anyways, here is Keller's definition of objectivity in two different
manifestations - dynamic and static:
****************************************************************
... Dynamic objectivity aims at a form of knowledge
that grants to the world around us its independent integrity but does
so in a way that remains cognizant of, indeed relies on, our con-
nectivity with that world. In this, dynamic objectivity is not unlike
empathy, a form of knowledge of other persons that draws exIplicitly
on the commonality of feelings and experience in order to enrich
one's understanding of another in his or her own right. By contrast,
I call static objectivity the pursuit of knowledge that begins with
the severance of subject from object rather than aiming at the dis-
entanglement of one from the other. For both static and dynamic
objectivity, the ambition appears the same, but the starting as-
sumptions one makes about the nature of the pursuit bear critically
on the outcome. Piaget, using slightly different terminology, re-
minds us:
"Objectivity consists in so fully realizing the countless intru-
sions of the self in everyday thought and the countless il-
lusions which result -- illusions of sense, language, point of
view, value, etc. -- that the preliminary step to every judg-
mcnt is the effort to exclude the intrusive self. Realism, on
the contrary consists in ignoring the existence of self and
hence regarding one's own perspective as immedivtely ob-
jective and absolute. Realism is thus anthropocentric illu-
sion, finality -- in short, all those illusions which teem in the
history of science. So long as thought has not become con-
scious of self, it is a prey to perpetual confusions between
objective and subjective, between the real and the osten-
sible. "(1972. p. 34)
Dynamic objectivity is thus a pursuit of knowledge that makes
use of subjective experience (Piaget calls it consciousness of self in
the interests of a more effective objectivity.) Premised on continuity,
it recognizes difference between self and other as an opportunity
for a deeper and more articulate kinship. The struggle to disentan-
gle self from other is itself a source of insight -- potentially into the
nature of both self and other. It is a principal means for divining
what Poincare calls "hidden harmonies and relations." To this end,
the scientist employs a form of attention to the natural world that is
like one's ideal attention to the human world: it is a form of love.
********************************************************
I have to say - I think that anyone who uses the word "Truth" in
a scientific context is probably practicing static objectivity, because
the empirical basis for scientific knowledge only consists of sets of
statistical confidence levels for the values of physical observables,
not in any empirical proof of mathematical logic of scientists as a
continuously reliable and accurate language to express the behaviour of
the physical world.
Mathematics originates inside the human mind. A set of statistical
confidence levels for the values of physical observables can never
be equivalent to a mathematical proof that mathematics itself is anything
other than a product of human imagination, no matter how many discrete
data points are measured that are in agreement with predictions for
physical observables made by mathematical modelling of a given physical
system (including the mind itself, probably).
Language also has no intrinsic existence - a word means nothing by itself
until its meaning is set by the people using it.
So the vast bulk of scientific knowledge consists of products of the
imagination, whose relations and properties are constrained by emprical
observation but not fully determined by them.
The word "truth" is rather out of place in this context.
And I for one am very against this word itself because to me it is
an enemy - since I as a woman have been historically cast as an enemy
to the truth, and "truthfulness" is *still* a property we as a human
culture overwhelmingly deny to women!!!
(I refer skeptics to Linda Fairstein's book on her career as a rape
prosecutor, to see the strength of our tradition that women are incapable
of telling the truth even with the help of physical evidence and witnesses.)
There is a strong relationship between the lesser credibility women have
in our society and the smaller proportions of women in science, especially
in phsyics where the word "truth" is abused as in no other subject.
The prevalence of an ideal of static objectivity in scientific culture
plays a large role in this relationship, and also in the conflation of
"objectivity" with domination and control.
Upon reading Keller's book, I have a new sense of myself as a physicist,
a much more pleasing and creative feeling for the subject than I had when
I viewed my research as a determined quest to uncover the Truth about
Nature.
That doesn't mean I have abandoned the need for experiment. But when we
realize that every small word we use is not testable in the lab and
so does not bear the burden of being "true" or "untrue" - it gives much
more room for creativity and enjoyment, and I think it will ultimately
make us much more effective teachers and communicators.
-patricia
Paul deArmond
A friend sent me the tread on "why people hate science", so I bobbled into
this group, looking for it, but alas, it has vanished from this site.
I would seek to broaden the range of objectivities, since, to quote a
fictional philosopher in Wolfe's _Book of the New Sun_: "All two valued
systems are false." I think that is a nice sentiment in this highly
dualized world that we live in, and also a bit of fun, since it is
expressing a two-valued sentiment.
Here in the US, there is a very strong cultural force that is openly
hostile to science and dynamic objectivism. That is fundamentalist
Christianity. <sigh, I know, here we go again....> It is not a minor
thing, since it has so strongly influenced our public school curriculums,
through politicized issues such as creationism, moralizing indoctrination
programs such as DARE, oposition to public health programs and other
activist attempts to impose religious values on public institutions. I
firmly believe that the intrusion of highly politicized agendas into the
public schools has had a very severe impact on the quality of secondary
education, and resultantly, the quality and range of thought that students
bring to undergraduate courses.
Politicized fundamentalism is inherently hostile to rationalism and seeks
to replace it with revealed knowledge. I would submit that there is a
very large population that operates on the basis of "revelatory
objectivity." This is really no objectivity at all, but rather an
atavistic return to blind scholastic appeal to single authority, the one
authority being the Bible, of course. Revelatory objectivity is actively
hostile to the object, seeking to subdue it. It takes a purely
hierarchical view of systems and does not allow the possibility of empathy.
Revelatory objectivity is perhaps the dominant form of thought in many
areas of the US. Any public curriculum that has been forced to include or
acknowledge creationism furthers this viewpoint, since it is validated by
the institution. A friend recently conducted a straw poll of his students
at a state university. 60% believed in the physical reality of angels...
There have been many different approaches to the relationship between
christian religion and nature. In some ways, the medieval schoolmen were
closer to dynamic objectivity than much of moderns science. The approach
of alchemists, astrologers, herbalists and other scholastic natural
philosophers was holistic and sought enlightenment rather than revelation.
The rationalists who founded our country were Deists. This search for
knowledge of God through knowledge of nature was anti-authoritarian,
empathetic and enlightened, rather than revalatory.
I have always found it curious that the appearance of the fundamentalist
revival of the 1830's was so closely contemporaneous to the fragmentation
of natural philosophy into isolated specialties. It has only been quite
recently that an interest in environmentalism and ecology has reintroduced
the broader reach of understanding that characterised the older Natural
Philosophy. Perhaps this explains the hostility that so many
fundamentalists have for environmentalism.
These are just random musings of mine... I think that any discussion of
the current sad state of science education in the US must take the impact
of politicized fundamentalism into account. In a way, this really a very
tragic situation, considering the role that the Protestant Reformation,
Classical Humanism, and Deism played in the evolution of modern science.
I am a great admirer of George Sarton and his work on the history of
science. Sometime when you are in a large library, look up his essays in
the early volumes of ISIS, the International Review devoted to the History
of Science and Civilization.
Paul de Armond
Patricia M. Schwarz
>A friend sent me the tread on "why people hate science", so I bobbled into
>this group, looking for it, but alas, it has vanished from this site.
It's not mine! I deserve no credit! It comes from the noted feminist and
scientist and science philospher Evelyn Fow Keller in her compact, highly
readable, very provocative book of essays "Reflections on Gender and Science."
But I'm glad you like my post.
This distinction has helped me a lot because now I see why there is "sexism"
in science, apart from the ordinary societal noise level.
But this word "sexism" is so simple and accusatory - I would prefer to
say that the issue of gender has had profound influences on science
as far back as Newton's age (I don't consider Plato a scientist and I haven't
felt influenced by any other cultures in an elemental way) and that the
only way to make scientific hiring and promotion truly gender-blind is
for us to study and examine the ways in which gender bias in encoded in
the very language we speak and our whole system of self-definition as
scientists (in this country, by and large) an indeed in the various
definitions of science itself.
>The approach
>of alchemists, astrologers, herbalists and other scholastic natural
>philosophers was holistic and sought enlightenment rather than revelation.
Yes - read chapter three of Keller's book - I think you will like it,
it discusses the battle between mechanical philosophy and alchemy
during the formation of the Royal Society, and also the role of scientists
(mechanical school scientists) in prosecuting women during the witch trials.
>These are just random musings of mine... I think that any discussion of
>the current sad state of science education in the US must take the impact
>of politicized fundamentalism into account. In a way, this really a very
>tragic situation, considering the role that the Protestant Reformation,
>Classical Humanism, and Deism played in the evolution of modern science.
I don't feel so kindly about the Protestant Reformation (could it be that
I'm Irish-American has somethin' to do with it, d'ya think?).
To tickle your imagination about the influence of Protestant religion on
science, take a gander at the November 1993 Scientific American, page 102,
where it shows that Protestant countries on the average have far fewer
percentages of women physicists than Catholic and Orthodox countries.
(Percentage of women compared with men, that is.)
Look at page 102, and read chapter 3 of Keller's book.
Then write back to me with your ideas! I would really like to hear what
you think after this.
-patricia
Ken Arromdee
>I don't feel so kindly about the Protestant Reformation (could it be that
>I'm Irish-American has somethin' to do with it, d'ya think?).
>To tickle your imagination about the influence of Protestant religion on
>science, take a gander at the November 1993 Scientific American, page 102,
>where it shows that Protestant countries on the average have far fewer
>percentages of women physicists than Catholic and Orthodox countries.
>(Percentage of women compared with men, that is.)
Repeat after me: Correlation is not causation.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"There are no good or evil plants. There are only... plants." --Ficus (Quark)
Patricia M. Schwarz
>M. Schwarz) writes:
>>I don't feel so kindly about the Protestant Reformation (could it be that
>>I'm Irish-American has somethin' to do with it, d'ya think?).
>>To tickle your imagination about the influence of Protestant religion on
>>science, take a gander at the November 1993 Scientific American, page 102,
>>where it shows that Protestant countries on the average have far fewer
>>percentages of women physicists than Catholic and Orthodox countries.
>>(Percentage of women compared with men, that is.)
>Repeat after me: Correlation is not causation.
1) You don't have to be so f***ing condescending.
2) Correlation is correlation. And there is a correlation in that graph.
A scientist would ask, "Hmmm...how could there be such a correlation?"
and investigate further. Here there is circumstantial evidence - not
causation either, but we put labels on cigarette boxes out of correlation
for many years, I don't think we have a causal mechanism for the apparent
correlation between lung cancer and smoking, do we?
So...excuse me if take the creative step of hypothesizing causation
in order to stimulate thinking and investigation of this idea.
And...I have some preliminary evidence from male and female physics
colleagues of mine in Russia, Italy and France that indicates this
extremely *wide* disparity of female participation in physics could be
related to the cultural and gender-related differences in concepts of
the role of reason and emotion in science, the gender construction of
male and female in terms of the reason/emotion split (which is not natural
to all cultures as far as I have heard from people in those other cultures,
although my sample consists only of working physicists), the social
construction of the concept of objectivity, etc.
And all of the above things have some degree of correlation with religion,
through various mechanisms including the question of whether or not
the culture in question admits a notion of abstract female thought -
and the association between "abstract" or "ethereal" and gender is largely
determined from religion.
Protestant religions do not admit any notion of abstract female spirit.
The only deity/s is/are male. The Big Three guys. And then is it any
wonder that numerous Protestant thinkers at the time of the Newtonian
revolution wrote scathing tracts on the ideal of science as being Truth,
and the ideal of Truth being incompatible by nature with women.
In fact Glanvill believed that science couldn't even be done in the
presence of women, who were seducers and enemies of Truth.
As sexist as it sounds in daily life, Catholicism admits
a full spectrum of female spiritual images in saints and the trinity
of women around Christ - Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary and a third
who fluctuates and I'm not going to look her up this minute.
Eastern Orthodox religions have an ancient tradition of Sophia, the
Goddess of Wisdom. So they idolize a concept of a *FEMALE* mind,
quite opposite to that of the Protestant idea of mind and reason
being in the image of God and inherently Male. (Of course the Sophia
cults are very minor now, but one can still see Sophia icons in
Russian Orthodox churches, and people seem to have no trouble recognizing
this series of icons as representing Wisdom. She looks just like the
Catholic Madonna, but with no reproductive emphasis, just a clear and
forthright gaze at the viewer.
It's all rather intriguing...because Orthodox and Catholic countries in
the graph presented very definitely have much larger female/male ratios
in physics than Protestant countries.
But this is something I've been discussing with women physicists,
I don't expect most of you guys out there to find it interesting,
I guess. Maybe because so many of you don't like to admit to being
controlled to some extent by cultural values and socialization...
-patricia
gerry harbison
[about a cited relationship between gender ratios in physics and the
dominant religion in those countries]
>A scientist would ask, "Hmmm...how could there be such a correlation?"
>and investigate further. Here there is circumstantial evidence - not
>causation either, but we put labels on cigarette boxes out of correlation
>for many years, I don't think we have a causal mechanism for the apparent
>correlation between lung cancer and smoking, do we?
Absolutely. Cigarette smoke containes polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons which can be shown to be mutagenic in themselves and are
even more so when metabolized by mammalian enzymes (ironically enough,
as part of the body's mechanism of detoxification). This has been
appreciated for at least 30 years; even some of the chemical
mechanisms have been worked out.
A better example of correlation without plausible causation is the
ongoing controversy about a correlation between exposure to HT power
lines and cancer rates. It's awfully tough to find a physically
plausible mechanism by which 60 Hz EM radiation could cause cancer,
yet we are being asked to change public policy based on this
correlation alone. Just as we're being asked to accept that gender
ratios is the sciences result mainly from discrimination, based
on correlations. I don't buy either one.
[deletia]
>But this is something I've been discussing with women physicists,
>I don't expect most of you guys out there to find it interesting,
>I guess. Maybe because so many of you don't like to admit to being
>controlled to some extent by cultural values and socialization...
Controlled: no, influenced: certainly. Do you admit to being
influenced to some extent by genetics and physiology?
>-patricia
Gerry Harbison/ Just this guy, you know
Matt Kennel
: And...I have some preliminary evidence from male and female physics
: colleagues of mine in Russia, Italy and France that indicates this
: extremely *wide* disparity of female participation in physics could be
: related to the cultural and gender-related differences in concepts of
: the role of reason and emotion in science, the gender construction of
: male and female in terms of the reason/emotion split (which is not natural
: to all cultures as far as I have heard from people in those other cultures,
: although my sample consists only of working physicists), the social
: construction of the concept of objectivity, etc.
One thing I don't understand is why there is then such a difference between
women's participation in biology and physics. Both modern research biology
and physics seem to have similar "male-oriented" "cultural biases" towards
objectivity and truth, and the same sort of political baggage and financial
competition et cetera. In fact, it may be the case that there is even more
of this political junk in biology these days. I don't see how prospective
female biologists would be under less pressure to be less "scientific" and
"objective" in the traditional sense than physicists, and yet the
proportions are widely different today.
The obvious difference is of course the mathematical prerequisites between
physics and biology; witness chemistry, with an intermediate level of
mathematics used, and an intermediate level of female participation.
The biggest origin of this disparity appears to be in the massively fucked
up US high schools, given the enrollment in college first-year mathematics and
physics classes.
Well 30 years ago nearly all biochemists were male, just like the physicists:
but that changed. Maybe eventually it will change for physics too; I hope.
I've also noticed that the proportion of female physicists in other
countries, and cultures is larger than here. At UCSD, my unscientific
impression is that probably between 1/2 to 3/4 of the female physics grad
students are Asian (usually Chinese) although about 1/4 of the male
students are of Asian origin.
: -patricia
--
-Matt Kennel m...@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-*** lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".