Home Page Search Eng. Jeff Oliver Merl's World NLP and Addictions
[ < Prev ] Thread Index [ Next > ]

Empiricism vs Subjectivity <was Photoreading validation / bumblebees>

----------
From:   John & Kristy Byrne[SMTP:slands@aic.net.au]
Sent:   Tuesday, October 10, 1995 4:38 AM
To:     nlptalk@ecuinfo.cowan.edu.au
Subject:        Re: Photoreading validation / bumblebees

>>Dear John Byrne,
>>
>>I fully agree with you first statement, but science has solved the
>>"mystery" of the bumblebe about three years ago now.  If you want I can
>>explain, but it is boring, since we all know that it works.
>>
>>regards Tylney Taylor
>
>-------------------------
>[John B. replies]
>
>[snip]
>
>I guess that I was really attacking the following:
>
>I get a little hot under the collar when science types say "If
>there ain't any scientific proof, then it ain't so!"
>
>I have a rather radical view that there just isn't anything in the
>world that isn't subjective. A view similar to that proposed by
>Jerry Fodor.
>
>If you think you've got proof of anything, and you want me to
>accept it, then you will first have to prove to me that you exist.
>
>Sorry to be so pedantic, but I find the pedancy (?) of some
>science types just as outrageous!
>
>[snip]
>
>Kindest Regards,
>
>
>John B.
>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I concur, mostly ...

During my college days I had a psychology professor who was
a dyed-in-the-wool Skinnerian behaviorist and -- as a "result"
(I'd venture to guess ;-) -- a most radical empiricist. To him, only
that which can be observed directly through the human senses
has any validity in science. Indeed, he even went so far as to
say (for example) that "consciousness" cannot exist because
it "cannot be observed."

Obviously ... poppy-cock.

The problem with purely empirical science is that it does not
allow *extra*-sensory experience to serve as a valid "observer"
of hypothetical (that is, "un"-observable) phenomena. That is
why analogs, models, paradigms, etc. have allowed "theory"
to gain much higher regard as a practical science in modern
times (_a la_ Relativity).

On the other hand, to suggest that "there just isn't anything
in the world that isn't subjective" is to espouse the absolute
converse of pure empiricism. It totally discredits *simple*
sensory observation as a valid scientific tool -- which is
absurd in itself, since much of what we use to validate all our
"various" models of subjectivity (including those found in NLP)
generally filters through *some* substantial form of human
sensory experience.

Truly "valid" science, I think, falls somewhere in between pure
empiricism and total subjectivity. For example ...

Loren Eisely once wrote:

"If the day comes when the slime of the laboratory for the first
time crawls under man's direction, we shall have great need
of humbleness. It will be difficult for us to believe, in our pride
of achievement, that the secret of life has slipped through our
fingers and eludes us still ... As for me, if I am still around that
day, I intend to put on my old hat and climb over the wall [and
search for old bones] as usual."

I hope to be at his side. ;->

Mark Sakry
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~