The subjective sciences.
There seems an opposition between objective and subjective points of view. In views that favor subjectivity, the attempt here is to make the
impersonal personal, to turn objects into subjects, a point of view as viewed from a particular point. The objective sciences seek the opposite, to
make the personal impersonal, to turn subjects into objects, a point of view as viewed from no particular point, but many. To this extent humanity has
created a diametrically opposed dichotomy where there really is none, and which can be rectified by being united them into a single idea—humans
viewing phenomena, and the information that results.
When we look at it this way, the subject and the object are one and the same thing viewed from different points. When one considers himself a subject,
it is because he is viewing himself from his own particular point of view, like how a microscope might see the microscope if it was able to, itself
knowing only that which of itself it is able to detect, the point from which itself views itself. What do I mean by this? For instance, when a subject
is thinking, he observes what he calls thoughts, what he believes to be a series of images and an internal dialogue. But this view is distorted by the
fact that eyes do not face inward, and the subject is unable to see the full set of circumstances from which these thoughts appear, but detects them
by other means. When viewed objectively—that is from any other points of view—these thoughts appear to be to be something else entirely, namely,
brain activity. The subject experiences phenomena from his subjective point of view as that which experiences the exact same phenomenon from an
objective point of view. The phenomena is the exact same, but viewed differently. Only by employing the two views is any sort of clarity expressed.
When we ask what phenomena humans are viewing in the case of the objective sciences, we tend to gloss over many of its aspects and never really view
objectivity objectively. Physics is rarely applied to physics, and science never to science. As such, the sciences risk becoming subjective
themselves, insofar that it is themselves, rather than the phenomena, that they are viewing.
Astrophysics is phenomena as viewed through the instrument of a telescope, as quantum mechanics is a view of the same phenomena through an electron
microscope. Though the frame of reference through which the phenomena is viewed is different in scope and direction, it is nonetheless the same
phenomena viewed through different instruments, different subjects, different lenses, subjectively. The view from which phenomena is viewed hasn’t
really changed, but is still a subjective view but distorted by instruments. One doesn’t actually see what is viewed through an electron microscope,
but instead views the electron microscope itself and the information it presents, by virtue of the fact that it is the electron microscope that is
being observed by humans, and not what it is viewing, The phenomena we observe by means of these instruments is relative to the instruments themselves
and how they relate to the phenomena we tell them to detect. When this occurs, science is no longer humans viewing phenomena, but humans viewing
instruments, or in other words, itself. And what the physicist thinks he knows is actually the instruments and how they relate to their surroundings,
and the principles used to describe them. A sonogram or a brain imaging technique looks very little like what it is detecting, but provides a picture
of how the instrument itself relates to phenomena, and how we relate to the instrument. The subjective viewpoint in this case is of the instrument
itself, rather than the phenomena.
The subjective point of view is never fully removed, for it is needed to derive information from results, but it is instead suppressed or limited by
what instrument is placed between subject viewing and object viewed. The extent to which a subjective point of view is dehumanized, objectified, by
trading human views of the world in favour of instrumental and mechanic views of the world, is in direct proportion to the technological advances made
in observation, and thus, what instruments we place between observer and observed. We would have never noticed micro-organisms if there was no
microscope, and no planets if there was no telescope, but what we are actually observing and noticing is the machinery we put before us. In this
sense, science is subjectively viewing its own technological and theoretical advance, itself, and how it is applied by humans.
Humanity’s ability to create tools of observation have widened the scope of points from which phenomena is viewed, and this scope somehow widens
even more each time a human method of observation is further distorted by an instrumental one. In the case of physics, discoveries are in correlation
to how much instrument or mathematics one puts between observer and observed. The more powerful, the more complex the lens, the more powerful, the
more complex the point view. In some cases, the actual physical phenomena viewed in theoretical physics is pure mathematics, and not any phenomena as
such. What grows out of the observation of mathematics, and not phenomena, has been called physics many times, but are really only subjective theories
about mathematical phenomena. It is no wonder that wave functions and other principles of the theoretical sciences are about mathematics, their
instruments, their experiments—themselves—rather than states of affairs and the world.
edit on 19-10-2014 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)