Skip to main content

Indexicals and the first-person perspective in scientific reports as supporting an anti-reductionist view of science

This is a very rough draft of some ideas I'm kicking around:

Scientific reports are either given in the first person or at least presuppose a first person report.
That is evidenced by the necessity of using indexicals  to give reports.   Indexicals include "this," "that," "here," "there," "now," "yesterday," "thereupon," etc.
The use of indexicals involves a first person perspective because they situate what is being reported in relation to the individual giving the report.

The practice of giving scientific reports begins in the first person.  That is, science as social practice begins only after someone says, "I did this, then that happened."

Eventually, reports can be given in the third person passive voice.  "This was added to that; such and such was observed."  But this is just a way of giving a first person report while leaving the reporter anonymous.  It is parasitic upon the first person perspective.

The following simple thought experiment can perhaps demonstrate that parasitism: two different scientists, upon separately publishing mutually inconsistent findings, written in the third person, will find it necessary to argue either with each other or with readers about whose report is accurate.  In defending the veracity of their reports, each of them will inevitably say things like, "Well, I did it this way, then I observed that... previously, I had combined...etc."  "I really did combine those two things: I'm not making it up."  If, when trying to establish the accuracy of their scientific reports, they insist on giving third-person accounts of what was done by an anonymous someone, they will be asked: how do you know that it was done this way?  Who did it?  Did he report to you?  Did he give you a first person report, or did he merely tell you that X was done by another, anonymous someone?"

Hmmmm: I smell an infinite regress problem that can only be solved by giving a certain primacy to first person reports.  Any scientific report, therefore, ultimately requires the taking of a stand by someone speaking in the first person about what was experienced.  The first person report is a personal commitment, of sorts.  A way of all-but-saying "Trust me," "I am putting my reputation on the line," etc.

For all these reasons, there is something anti-reductive about scientific reporting (the possibility of which must be presupposed by those who quite reasonably give credence to science's conclusions), for in saying that they previously did this, observed that, etc, reporters presuppose their own identity through time.  They take for granted that the reporter, observer, and doer are one.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more