Scientific Objectivity

Here are a couple more quotes from Anthony Thiselton's "New Horizons in Hermeneutics" with respect to scientific objectivity. These quotes are with reference to some ideas of Heidegger and Gadamer.

"For Heidegger, what is 'objective,' including making assertions about 'facts,' is derivative from, and dependent on, hermeneutical understanding from within a given horizon. The fact-stating language of the sciences has its place, but only at a merely technical or instrumental level."
(P. 319)

Re Gadamer's thought:

"The physical sciences appear to operate on an empirical, rational, or observational basis, but in actuality these are presuppositions in 'possibilities of knowing' which are left 'half in the dark.' For example, the science of statistics seems to be an exact observational and mathematical discipline based only on 'the facts.' But 'which questions these facts answer, and which facts would begin to speak if other questions were asked, are hermeneutical questions.' Much depends in research in the sciences on 'noticing the interesting fact,' or the use of imagination, and on the posing of the right question...' Hermeneutics concerns all human enquiry."
(P. 322)

Within its own world science is, for the mostpart, rational, objective, observational and based on 'the facts.' This is both a true and a superficial observation. A scientist's claim to objectivity does not amount to as much as he may think it does. It is not all that difficult to create a philosophical space for your work and then to remain consistent and objective within it. Every worldview, including the scientific one, does this. What many scientists have difficulty recognizing is that the foundation of their discipline is philosophically based. The objectivity of science does not extend beyond that philosophical commitment and cannot. Science may be founded on any number of philosophical (or religious) foundations and maintain within itself the same objectivity and commitment to 'the facts.' The doing of science and the founding of science are two very distinct enterprises and must each be carefully respected as such. Science itself is not a worldview but it is never practiced independently of a worldview. This is what Heidegger and Gadamer are seeking to point out.

Talking to the enemy

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." (Moshe Dayan)

While it is not always possible to talk to your enemy, the fact remains that much precious time is lost in the peace process by delaying the dialogue. The context of the above quote is a matter of international peace but I continue to explore the more mundane matter of dialogue between disparate parties with repect to issues of intellectual disagreement. This is a world of learning, insight, and understanding that inhabits the space of reasonable, respectful, and thoughtful dialogue between highly polarized positions. This fruitfulness awaits our willingness to release the desire to quickly dismiss, debunk, or demolish the enemy position.

If the above quote is true why do we not talk to our enemies? Some reasons immediately suggest themselves:

1. We believe that we are in a position to live without peace. The level of conflict is tolerable without any incentive to listen or compromise.
2. We blindly hate the enemy. Our history as enemies has created a great chasm or pronounced polarization. There is a deep inertia to hate that requires powerful motives to overcome.
3. We don't negotiate with________ (fill in the blank: terrorists, fundamentalists, liberals, conservatives, religious wingnuts, atheists, heretics...).
4. Dialogue is seen as a softening of our position. If I talk with my enemy I am already agreeing that my position isn't strong enough to stand alone in opposition to all other possible positions.
5. Talking to an enemy is seen as a sign of weakness. If I really believe in my position my enemy can go to hell.

Of course there is considerable mythology in the above reasons for avoiding dialogue and all the fruitfulness of discussion is delayed until something pushes us into a more hopeful relationship.

What elements might be necessary for talking to enemies?

1. Forgiveness. The enemy is dangerous and has done us much harm. We have a history that we cannot get past. Forgiveness is the only way past this history. There is no fruitful dialogue without at least one side extending forgiveness.
2. Listening. We have to be willing to hear that some of the argument and rationale of the enemy may be well founded.
3. Recognition of common ground. It helps the discussion considerably to affirm what both sides hold in common.
4. Find the "reasonable" people on each side, with whom the dialogue can begin.
5. Lose the rhetoric. In effect, disarm or at least declare a ceasefire.
6. Understand the non-negotiables on both sides. This keeps the discussion realistic.
7. Encourage hope for the possibility of a positive outcome, even if it is only a generous "agree to disagree."
8. See that your own position will likely be enriched through dialogue. Your strengths will be made stronger and you will have an opportunity to identify and minimize, or even eliminate, some of your weaknesses.
9. Recognize that "peace" and "agreement" are not necessarily the same thing.