From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phenomenology and Science
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:18:49 +0000


Jud wrote:

>Regarding your scientist friend treating your dog, I'm afraid that you
>are wrong again for in order to have him do it in exactly the same
>way, you would need to tell him the ingredients to the potion which
>you had worked on - a potion which, because of the love for you dog,
>you had poured your heart and soul into. In that case you would still
>be part of the experiment.

The very same potion with the very same ingredients could have been 
discovered by someone else who couldn't care less about my dog.

>So it
>is no use you saying that you could  in theory just hand the dog over
>to a vet and say: 'Go ahead you handle it and use your own
>medication,' for the veterinarian remember was probably drawn to
>Veterinary Science because of his interest in and love for animals in
>the first place,

Again, I never denied that feelings are motivationally relevant. But two 
people with completely different motivations can perform precisely the same 
experiment with exactly the same precision, and they should get precisely 
the same results, regardless of their motivations.

>Anthony: I cannot affect the actual outcome,
>
>Jud: Yes you can - you have just done so by handing over to another vet -
>this in itself shows concern for the subject i. e. your dog.

Someone who couldn't care less about my dog could also hand it over to 
another vet.

>Anthony:
>but it can affect my conclusions. And sometimes, it can even affect
>how I observe. For example, if my feelings towards the subject cause
>me to favor a certain outcome, I may just "ignore" certain little
>details that do not support my desired outcome, while including the
>ones that do, and actually think that I have reached a scientifically
>rigorous conclusion.
>
>Jud: Whatever you do - whatever way you think it through your thoughts are
>orientated towards a successful outcome regarding the dog's welfare
>there is no escape - which ever way you twist and turn - from a caring
>interest or uncaring disinterested attitude towards the subject dog,
>and in both cases it shows feelings for the subject one way or the
>other.

Do you agree with what I said above, that your feelings towards the subject 
can indeed affect a scientist's conclusions, so that since a scientist 
should reach the same conclusion regardless of how they feel about the 
outcome, that therefore their feelings are scientifically irrelevant in that 
sense? Because that is all I mean.

>But you have not addressed my point again that by bracketing out his
>and by flying blind with the conscious 'I-world' alone, there is no
>confirmation that because the 'I'  [via the brain] can 'speak to him
>[the whole thing is totally ridiculous, but I will continue to humour
>you] that there is a body HIS BODY apodictically to go along with the
>brainless consciousness - for if he had no body (Hahah! I can't help
>laughing) and had no mind [not that I believe there IS such a thing]
>then how would he know he existed, unless perhaps there is another
>phantom called Herr.

The same way you know you existed last night, even though the body you saw 
was completely imaginary, despite the fact that it looked exactly like the 
body you saw when you woke up.

>Why is it only at night that the body becomes imaginary?

That's precisely Husserl's point - the phenomena look exactly the same 
either way, whether it's all a dream, or all real, or some real and some 
dreaming. So all such assumptions about when the body you see is real and 
when it is not are phenomenologically irrelevant, because the phenomena look 
identical either way. That is what he means.

>Is it a
>werewolf type thing? ;-)  What happens in the morning to initiate the
>I-world into kick-starting the recognition of the body? I honestly
>don't know how you manage to keep your face straight when you are
>writing this sort of stuff Anthony - have you no sense of humour?

My sense of humor is phenomenologically irrelevant.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---