Alex,
I could theoretically conduct an experiment with an electomagnetic field detector that tests whether photon waves are registered near my face when I close my eyes. If those fields are *humanly* detectable each time the *human* experiment is conducted, then *I* have a strong probable cause in thinking that closing my eyes is not effective in affecting *our* interpretation of *human* science (i.e., the dynamics of photon emission).
Now, notice that all the interpretations of the data is framed within human and intelligent frameworks. The ideal test (experiment 2) for the complete human objectivity of science would be to remove the human interpreter and see if human constructs (e.g., photons, cause, interpretation, science, etc) still hold the same meaning to an alien intelligence. The next ideal experiment (experiment 3) after that one would be to remove the observer completely, but that would fully destroy the experiment since without an observer the results of an experiment cannot be reported.
Since we don't know of other intelligent beings capable of extensive human language we cannot conduct experiment 2 and by definition of what an experiment is we can never conduct experiment 3. Hence, we are forever lacking in a scientific confirmation that science is about things independent of mind (and for the time being prevented from conducting experiment 2). It's a great thesis, don't get me wrong, but this thesis can't be empirically confirmed therefore your philosophical argument and conclusions remain in the confides of philosophy.
Warm regards, Harv |