Imagine this scenario:

Dave: how did you like that play?
Ralph: as an objective unbiased individual, i`m not able to make that type of a decision.
Dave: what?
Ralph: *sigh* i simply can`t say whether or not i can say if that movie was good unless you can define good through an operational definition. How does one empiracally measure if a play was good or not? Good is a highly subjective notion... wheras i am an entirely objective human being.
Dave: huh?


Alright, i`m poking fun at the situation, but the issue is very real. Can an entirely objective unbiased account every be truly achieved? I don`t think it can, because we are human beings. We make value judgements all the time, and complete objectivity is impossible. It`s important to see both sides of the matter i agree, and i admire your attempt at doing that, but IT IS okay to choose a side on the matter based on what the evidence shows for the time being. That after all is what science does... provides best possible explanations for the time being - scientists are allowed to change their minds. So is everyone else.

Even in science things come down to subjective judgements. "What an elegant mathematical theorem" for example. "what a beautiful solution". Can beauty be quantified? Of course not.

I`m not undervaluing science... as an atheist, i think science is an incredible tool, but it really can`t provide complete knowledge because so much of the world is empirical.

• correction to last statement.. oops - tenacious - October 4, 2000 - 01:38 UTC
  • RE: correction to last statement.. oops - Andy™ - October 10, 2000 - 21:23 UTC