
This started as a simple response to a friends blog, however the response elaborated into my own post.
Objectivity is a tenant of science like legs are the foundations of a table. However, any firm believers in such objectivity may be sadly dismayed to find that objectivity better resembles the tablecloth rather than the foundation. Jack Webb's character on Dragnet was infamous for saying just the facts ma'am. (On a brief side note, this phrase is incorrect. The actual phrase was All we know are the facts ma'am). You may have also heard the popular phrase "the facts speak for themself".

Research is conducted to find the facts of a situation. However, those facts are sought to prove or disprove a hypothesis. When we make an argument for a case, our arguments contain a premise and conclusion. So what if a underlying premise is difficult to deduce? For instance, the statement "We are causing global warming" contains a underlying premise: the rate of increase in global warming is increasing, the increase is unhealthy, and we are the cause.


So to summarize, we should be aware that often we are getting someone's interpretation of the facts. These interpretations themselves carry their own baggage. This is unavoidable, since everything we do is colored with emotional overtones. Basically we can't strip the impact that emotions play in our decisions, choices, and beliefs. However, that's a topic for a different time...
2 comments:
I don't believe enlightenment thinking is the apex of human civilization, but it did give us a gift. Even Wesley included "reason" in his quadrilateral of how we come to know God's truth (I think this is right). Not that people before hadn't used any reason, but never before was it so emphasized.
Even though it may be ultimately unreachable, I think the striving towards objectivity is still worthwhile. Even Christian apologists appeal to reason to make Christianity logically feasible. Give me truth!
Am I babbling yet?
not at all Erasmus :)
Post a Comment