The Subjective Sciences

The subjective sciences.

There seems an opposition between objective and subjective points of view. In views that favor subjectivity, the attempt here is to make the impersonal personal, to turn objects into subjects, a point of view as viewed from a particular point. The objective sciences seek the opposite, to make the personal impersonal, to turn subjects into objects, a point of view as viewed from no particular point, but many. To this extent humanity has created a diametrically opposed dichotomy where there really is none, and which can be rectified by being united them into a single idea—humans viewing phenomena, and the information that results.

When we look at it this way, the subject and the object are one and the same thing viewed from different points. When one considers himself a subject, it is because he is viewing himself from his own particular point of view, like how a microscope might see the microscope if it was able to, itself knowing only that which of itself it is able to detect, the point from which itself views itself. What do I mean by this? For instance, when a subject is thinking, he observes what he calls thoughts, what he believes to be a series of images and an internal dialogue. But this view is distorted by the fact that eyes do not face inward, and the subject is unable to see the full set of circumstances from which these thoughts appear, but detects them by other means. When viewed objectively—that is from any other points of view—these thoughts appear to be to be something else entirely, namely, brain activity. The subject experiences phenomena from his subjective point of view as that which experiences the exact same phenomenon from an objective point of view. The phenomena is the exact same, but viewed differently. Only by employing the two views is any sort of clarity expressed.

When we ask what phenomena humans are viewing in the case of the objective sciences, we tend to gloss over many of its aspects and never really view objectivity objectively. Physics is rarely applied to physics, and science never to science. As such, the sciences risk becoming subjective themselves, insofar that it is themselves, rather than the phenomena, that they are viewing.

Astrophysics is phenomena as viewed through the instrument of a telescope, as quantum mechanics is a view of the same phenomena through an electron microscope. Though the frame of reference through which the phenomena is viewed is different in scope and direction, it is nonetheless the same phenomena viewed through different instruments, different subjects, different lenses, subjectively. The view from which phenomena is viewed hasn’t really changed, but is still a subjective view but distorted by instruments. One doesn’t actually see what is viewed through an electron microscope, but instead views the electron microscope itself and the information it presents, by virtue of the fact that it is the electron microscope that is being observed by humans, and not what it is viewing, The phenomena we observe by means of these instruments is relative to the instruments themselves and how they relate to the phenomena we tell them to detect. When this occurs, science is no longer humans viewing phenomena, but humans viewing instruments, or in other words, itself. And what the physicist thinks he knows is actually the instruments and how they relate to their surroundings, and the principles used to describe them. A sonogram or a brain imaging technique looks very little like what it is detecting, but provides a picture of how the instrument itself relates to phenomena, and how we relate to the instrument. The subjective viewpoint in this case is of the instrument itself, rather than the phenomena.

The subjective point of view is never fully removed, for it is needed to derive information from results, but it is instead suppressed or limited by what instrument is placed between subject viewing and object viewed. The extent to which a subjective point of view is dehumanized, objectified, by trading human views of the world in favour of instrumental and mechanic views of the world, is in direct proportion to the technological advances made in observation, and thus, what instruments we place between observer and observed. We would have never noticed micro-organisms if there was no microscope, and no planets if there was no telescope, but what we are actually observing and noticing is the machinery we put before us. In this sense, science is subjectively viewing its own technological and theoretical advance, itself, and how it is applied by humans.

Humanity’s ability to create tools of observation have widened the scope of points from which phenomena is viewed, and this scope somehow widens even more each time a human method of observation is further distorted by an instrumental one. In the case of physics, discoveries are in correlation to how much instrument or mathematics one puts between observer and observed. The more powerful, the more complex the lens, the more powerful, the more complex the point view. In some cases, the actual physical phenomena viewed in theoretical physics is pure mathematics, and not any phenomena as such. What grows out of the observation of mathematics, and not phenomena, has been called physics many times, but are really only subjective theories about mathematical phenomena. It is no wonder that wave functions and other principles of the theoretical sciences are about mathematics, their instruments, their experiments—themselves—rather than states of affairs and the world.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Oh, the subjective sciences are alive and well if you have the math chops to deal with them. Here, let MIT's Max tegmark tell you all about them:
www.youtube.com...
Its all about your "personal density matrix" as he calls it. He also has a great graphic in the presentation relating subject, object, and environment, with formal mathematical statements relating each, that pan out in observation, and both quantum and classical levels. Don't let the foo-sayers limit your imagination when it comes to research!

Peace!

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Well put sir!

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

From what I understand, the goal of scientific study is to model reality, of course, the observations are based on instrumentation, however, if the model is accurate in predicting and charting phenomenon in our environment then we can say that it is realistic. We can predict weather patterns, we can predict the path of a billiard ball, and we can even estimate the age of stars.

In order to include the subjective viewpoint we would have different models for each instrument, each observation method would have its own modelling set.

The problem with this, is that, there is no definitive "answer" as to the nature of absolute reality, perhaps, we should assume that it can never be truly answered, and that reality (i.e. the universe/big bang) is a puzzle that can never really be put together with an adequate amount of certainty.

It is this uncertainty that creates speculation and subjectivity, and in a way, being subjective is to understand that there is not going to be a definitive objective answer.

Much of what I post on ATS has little or no proof besides my own personal experiences, and indeed, it is real from my perspective, although irrelevant to many others whom have different experiences. What we can do with subjective topics is to find those whom have had similar experiences, with the experience of the same "grey area" phenomenon by multiple individuals, perhaps we can have the personal satisfaction that our experiences are not isolated incidents, but phenomenon experienced by a significant amount of the population.

If a phenomenon is observed by a statistically significant amount of the population, it does invite further objective study. I find such a study plausible in the realm of dreams and spiritual experiences, something usually considered highly subjective.