Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Dear John,
>For example, if you say "It's a hot day", you're more likely
>to be correct than if you say "The temperature is 35 C."
>But for many purposes, such as deciding what clothes to wear,
>the first statement is just as good as the second.
However for the person, who lives in the desert climate, 35 C may be "not so hot", so if you happen to ask that person - he/she might say "It is a cool day", thus prooving that such type of answers carry some possibility of personal "subjectivity", while if you see the (correctly functioning) thermometer, showing +35 C, you are undoubtly getting "objective" experimental data.
If you also know that the accuracy of this thermometer is +/- 0.1 degree C, then you are also having "objective assessment" of the accuracy of the measurement.
Therefore, the "knowledge", supported by the "objective" "measurability", is always "superior" to the one, which is not.
....
>In this example, people choose to use a theory that is known
>to be less accurate. Would you call that choice objective or
>subjective? Since I don't care, I prefer to avoid those words.
Obviously, the Einstein's formula is a better appoximation of the particular "objective" Natural Law (than the less accurate Newton's formula) and, therefore, the theory, which supports Newton's formula from the point of view of being *objective* "scientific hypothesis" has been "invalidated".
However, for the practical purposes (if it gives results within acceptable accuracy) it is OK to be used.
Best Regards,
Alex
-- "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
Dear Alex,
I would never object to anyone stating a rational position
on any topic, whether I agree or not. I was only objecting
to Chris L's attitude and ad hominem remarks.
AP> Would you object, if I would add to the above
> paragraph of yours (just for completeness and
> clarification purposes, since it appears tome that
> you have said it explicitly and also implied it
> multiple times) that the above accuracy should be
> "objectively" assessed by the "objective" experimental data ?
Actually, I didn't use the word "objective" because that
word raises a large number of further complications. I
merely said that the the method of reaching a hypothesis
does not affect its truth, falsity, or accuracy.
AP> It is much *easier* to prove that the *assessment* is
> *objective* if the "scientific hypothesis" is expressed
> as mathematical formulation (or in any other "quantitative"
> *format*) - would you agree with my statement, John ?
Perhaps, but I would prefer not to use the word "objective"
because any mathematical formulation of any kind can only
be true within the limits of possible errors in measurement.
The question of whether the error is relevant or irrelevant
depends on somebody's purpose in choosing one application
or another.
Again, I would like to quote my favorite philosopher,
C. S. Peirce:
It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme.
Only, one must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain.
It is equally easy to be certain. One has only to be
sufficiently vague. It is not so difficult to be pretty
precise and fairly certain at once about a very narrow
subject. (CP 4.237, 1902)
For example, if you say "It's a hot day", you're more likely
to be correct than if you say "The temperature is 35 C."
But for many purposes, such as deciding what clothes to wear,
the first statement is just as good as the second.
In science, precision is important because it makes the theories
easier to falsify, but if we already know what the error limits
are, we might choose a simpler theory that is only approximately
true. For example, when engineers are designing cars and
airplanes, they normally use Newton's laws because they make
the same predictions as Einstein's laws within the limits of
our measuring instruments.
In this example, people choose to use a theory that is known
to be less accurate. Would you call that choice objective or
subjective? Since I don't care, I prefer to avoid those words.
John