Now this may not shock that many people, but I have no reason to try to shock people, I like philosophy and especially the philosophy of science. This blog entry is about a question I was made aware of yesterday during a brake in a seminar on rhetoric.
In science the ideal is to be objective. It is true that scientists are human and not always live up to the ideal, but the goal of being objective in the search for knowledge remains.
Yesterday I was surprised over an idea expressed by a fellow attendee at the seminar. She considered it to be unnecessary to try to be objective. We were now not discussing science but the softer topics like philosophy, history, rhetoric, and all the rest. But I was surprised that anyone could hold the view that it is not the ideal to be objective.
The motivation was that several perspectives are better, and that a real scholar should let different voices emerge from the material he/she studies. Of course this is true, a multitude of perspectives is an advantage. As often is the case I could not at the moment find a response; I have now.
Objectivity is not a perspective. To be objective, or rather to try to be objective, is about trying to the out most not to add or take away anything, not to let value judgements guide the interpretation, and allowing even the most terrible text the benefit of a doubt that there might be something in it. This is something that the good scholar need to do for all chosen perspectives, we do not have access to the “real” world. We are always watching it through some theory, or as others call it perspective. But each perspective deserves to be handled with care, and that implies objectivity.
It is not all right for a conservative to screw up a Marxist perspective on the “Arab spring” just because the conservative doesn't like communism. If you choose to adopt a Marxist perspective you can't let your personal feelings about that perspective make you deviate from what that perspective might tell you. This is of course also true for someone who loves Marx and might deviate in the other direction.
Finally, the reason why it is better to use several perspectives instead of just one, is because we hope to get closer to an objective understanding of what we study. Since all perspectives are limited and the choice of perspective might be subjective (even if it isn't a conscious subjective choice) to use several perspectives will be an advantage.
In conclusion to be objective is not a perspective.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Friday, 19 September 2008
Confession
If Socrates was right that ”the unexamined life is not worth living” it is evident that we must examine not only others but perhaps even more importantly ourselves. The other day I discovered yet again that I don’t always have an open mind. I overheard a conversation between two students after a seminar. During the seminar we had briefly discussed the meaning of a certain word in Nietzsche’s work. In German there are more words for “explanation” than in Swedish and one of the words has a meaning more like “illumination” perhaps with a hint of “self-evident”.
Translations between languages are always difficult and a reason to really learn different languages and understanding the meaning of the words, not merely a translation of the words, is that it will let you understand how your own vocabulary limits your possibility to think, and of course to expand those limits with new concepts. But I digress.
I am an imperfect human. I over heard this conversation and I at once formed my opinion that this person was not thinking in an intelligent way, that he was a buffoon, a philosophical buffoon but all the same a buffoon. Of course my reasons for thinking this can be found in what he said. But no matter what he said I had not sufficient evidence to jump to that conclusion.
Before I explain what I found so silly in this overheard conversation I have to confess that my opinion of this person is still negative although I know that I didn’t hear enough to be in a position to form a well founded belief. First impressions last.
The person who did most of the talking was writing a master thesis in sociology. He was glad that he had found a new idea of what an explanation is. He wanted to get away from the “theoretical explanations” that he found in sociology and have something more like “revelation”.
I hope that what he wanted was a way to describe how people use the word “explanation”. It is perhaps not always the case that what is given as an explanation in everyday life really explain things.
Of course I do not know what he meant with “theoretical explanation” but in my mind I formed the idea that he wanted to avoid analytical explanations, explanations that divide things into little pieces, explanations that limits the mind from seeing the big picture, so that he could just understand how it is. Indeed I got the impression that he wanted to steer away from old time ideas about explanations that limits the free and open mind of the researcher in sociology.
I am afraid that he will only find conviction, and conviction is a poor substitute for explanation. The important point of an explanation is that it explains things. It gives others the possibility to follow the analytical train of thoughts that lead to an understanding of how something works. A conviction, an understanding that is only based on revelation can never be anything else but personal. A personal explanation as well as a personal language is dead. Explanations are theoretical and analytical because they have to communicate something.
Translations between languages are always difficult and a reason to really learn different languages and understanding the meaning of the words, not merely a translation of the words, is that it will let you understand how your own vocabulary limits your possibility to think, and of course to expand those limits with new concepts. But I digress.
I am an imperfect human. I over heard this conversation and I at once formed my opinion that this person was not thinking in an intelligent way, that he was a buffoon, a philosophical buffoon but all the same a buffoon. Of course my reasons for thinking this can be found in what he said. But no matter what he said I had not sufficient evidence to jump to that conclusion.
Before I explain what I found so silly in this overheard conversation I have to confess that my opinion of this person is still negative although I know that I didn’t hear enough to be in a position to form a well founded belief. First impressions last.
The person who did most of the talking was writing a master thesis in sociology. He was glad that he had found a new idea of what an explanation is. He wanted to get away from the “theoretical explanations” that he found in sociology and have something more like “revelation”.
I hope that what he wanted was a way to describe how people use the word “explanation”. It is perhaps not always the case that what is given as an explanation in everyday life really explain things.
Of course I do not know what he meant with “theoretical explanation” but in my mind I formed the idea that he wanted to avoid analytical explanations, explanations that divide things into little pieces, explanations that limits the mind from seeing the big picture, so that he could just understand how it is. Indeed I got the impression that he wanted to steer away from old time ideas about explanations that limits the free and open mind of the researcher in sociology.
I am afraid that he will only find conviction, and conviction is a poor substitute for explanation. The important point of an explanation is that it explains things. It gives others the possibility to follow the analytical train of thoughts that lead to an understanding of how something works. A conviction, an understanding that is only based on revelation can never be anything else but personal. A personal explanation as well as a personal language is dead. Explanations are theoretical and analytical because they have to communicate something.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
What good is philosophy?
In Sweden the university studies are starting for the term. Here in Upppsala one can see many new faces, students new to the city and the university. Last week there was an introduction to philosophy in the main university building. One professor spoke about the use of philosophy she quoted a passage from a source that elude my memory at the moment.
The quote began to say that if you want to be a barrister, economist, or a MD you probably do not have much use of philosophy. This is not a new idea, since the earliest days of philosophy the thinkers have been accused of being useless in all ways practical. In the end though we were told that if you study philosophy you will at least be able to spot when other people speak BS. (If this is in accordance with the old proverb “it takes a thief to catch a thief” I leave unsaid.)
If it is a fact or not, that philosophers learn to detect BS, is an interesting question. Is it true and is it enough. Even if you might be better at detecting inflated claims and dishonest reasoning with others as a philosopher, there is one very necessary thing missing. Do you as a philosopher learn to detect when you are talking BS to yourself?
The question about if it is true that philosophers are good at detecting BS probably needs some careful studying. I would think that after learning how to analyse arguments and looking at all kinds of fallacies philosophers might be better at realising when someone violates the rules of deduction or infer too much from a statement. On the other hand a philosopher without the proper premises are as lost as anyone else.
If the BS a philosopher is offered do not go against his or hers all ready formed ideas about how the world works, and if the construction of the arguments agree with the laws of logic, a philosopher is as likely as anyone else to fall for BS.
Unless of course it is the kind of philosopher that likes to throw everything they got at even their most cherished ideas. Fortunately that seems to be just the kind of people that becomes philosophers.
The quote began to say that if you want to be a barrister, economist, or a MD you probably do not have much use of philosophy. This is not a new idea, since the earliest days of philosophy the thinkers have been accused of being useless in all ways practical. In the end though we were told that if you study philosophy you will at least be able to spot when other people speak BS. (If this is in accordance with the old proverb “it takes a thief to catch a thief” I leave unsaid.)
If it is a fact or not, that philosophers learn to detect BS, is an interesting question. Is it true and is it enough. Even if you might be better at detecting inflated claims and dishonest reasoning with others as a philosopher, there is one very necessary thing missing. Do you as a philosopher learn to detect when you are talking BS to yourself?
The question about if it is true that philosophers are good at detecting BS probably needs some careful studying. I would think that after learning how to analyse arguments and looking at all kinds of fallacies philosophers might be better at realising when someone violates the rules of deduction or infer too much from a statement. On the other hand a philosopher without the proper premises are as lost as anyone else.
If the BS a philosopher is offered do not go against his or hers all ready formed ideas about how the world works, and if the construction of the arguments agree with the laws of logic, a philosopher is as likely as anyone else to fall for BS.
Unless of course it is the kind of philosopher that likes to throw everything they got at even their most cherished ideas. Fortunately that seems to be just the kind of people that becomes philosophers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
