ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/13/85)
>>>>{M Ellis} >>>{?} >>{Michael Sykora} >{Paul Torek} >>>> Individual subjective experience is by definition external to >>>> the universe of science, since the scientific method involves >>>> by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent >>>> observers. >>> >>>Does this mean that the social sciences aren't sciences? >> >>No, it only limits them. > >It seems to limit psychology drastically. I think your comment (>>>>) >was an overstatement at best. For one thing, I think it may in principle >be possible to explain/correlate subjective experience with neurobiological >events. Not at all! A great deal, if not most, of modern psychology is a `science' by my definition (>>>>). Any attempt to correlate objective brain activity with subjective mental experience includes the RESPONSES of those subjects whose brains are being monitored. Now the subjects' responses are physical events, just as is the correlated neurobiological activity -- all pure objective science. Likewise, the work already done that crudely maps out various brain functions is also `science' by my definition. Even if all conscious phenomena are in principle commensurable, it seems likely that practical considerations will severely limit the extent to which one's internal brain state can be determined. It may be possible that many subjective events of which we are conscious correspond to individual quantum events, or perhaps even as higher level `meaningful coincidences' of quantum events. Such subjective phenomena would then forever be beyond scientific measurement. Regardless of how far science may ultimately peek into our minds, its knowledge will inherently be secondhand. Disciplines based on reflection of direct firsthand knowledge of our own subjective experience will forever be a totally different kind of wisdom from anything science has to offer. SMASH CAUSALITY!! -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/18/85)
>>>>> Individual subjective experience is by definition external to >>>>> the universe of science, since the scientific method involves >>>>> by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent >>>>> observers. >>>>Does this mean that the social sciences aren't sciences? >>>No, it only limits them. >>It seems to limit psychology drastically. I think your comment (>>>>) >>was an overstatement at best. For one thing, I think it may in principle >>be possible to explain/correlate subjective experience with neurobiological >>events. > Not at all! > > A great deal, if not most, of modern psychology is a `science' by > my definition (>>>>). > > Any attempt to correlate objective brain activity with subjective mental > experience includes the RESPONSES of those subjects whose brains are > being monitored. > > Now the subjects' responses are physical events, just as is the > correlated neurobiological activity -- all pure objective science. Wait a minute!! Let's get our perspectives straight here. The *study* of how subjective experience relates to actual brain activity and/or perceptions (and distortions thereof) of the real world BY the brain IS of course a science (if done rigorously and using a scientific method that avoids subjective preconceptions). This does NOT make subjective experience (or rather, its use in serious study) equivalent to scientific evidence. Unless we could demonstrate the actual correlation between the subjective experience and the actual physical occurrences (the difference between what is perceived and what happens), we cannot use it in any serious study. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr