(January 19, 2024 at 10:18 pm)neil Wrote: I think I have a better grasp of this in terms of scientific knowledge, because with art it can be a matter of subjectivity, interpretation, opinion, etc.
To me, scientific knowledge includes & entails me, myself, conducting and observing the test, study, experiment, and/or analysis; scientific knowledge is not anyone else dictating to me what it is, whether it's religion, the government, some award involving fame and monetary reward (e.g. Nobel prize), corporations, wealthy individuals, celebrities, or the media.
Even that's not enough, though; for example, there needs to be repetition producing the same results, or a statistical trend or value, comparison to results from other sources & peer review, guidance from subject matter experts (e.g. taking a college course in the scientific field or area), it essentially has to be something that's falsifiable, and - in general - the application of the scientific method. This, of course, also involves logical, valid, and sound arguments, an understanding and awareness of what axioms are involved, etc.
I certainly hope that scientific knowledge can rise to the level you describe. That's the ideal.
Sad to say, in the world we have now science is often done with commercial ends in mind. Or political. I read a long article recently on the science behind anti-depressant medication and the theory of serotonin imbalance as a cause of depression. In recent years it has come out that for-profit companies were shockingly dishonest about the results of their research. Millions of people are on drugs which have serious side-effects and perform just as well as placebos. This was intentional deceit.
Likewise all the Covid stuff, although bringing that up is likely to open a can of ideological worms.
So anyway, I agree that science-type knowledge has the potential to be objective. Perhaps someday society will allow that.
As for me and myself conducting and observing the test -- how many times does this really happen? I mean, what percentage of scientific results widely accepted as true do we really test at home?
As for the arts -- I agree completely that the kinds of things we learn from them are not the empirical reproducible type of data that science gives. Nonetheless I feel quite sure that subjective, interpretative, opinion-based input is pretty much essential for understanding the world and, in particular, oneself.
