The Enlightenment myth that science is (a) totally objective and that
(b) it can do every thing, answer every question, fill every void is
well past its
use by date IMHO. Science is not inherently objective. This is because
it is done by humans, who are inherently subjective. How do we put
ourselves outside of our humanity to interpret the data we obtain
scientifically?  We can, and should, recognise the importance of seeking
objectivity. But to presume we can attain it every time we undertake a
research endeavour is ludicrous. Not that I am ranting or anything...

People like Dawkins, who push their view on others on the basis that
it's scientific and that that in of itself makes it inherently superior
to any other
view, drive me crazy... He's a fundamentalist scientismist. He makes
people laugh at the academy. Ok, now I am ranting...

/me takes a deep breath

I think we are here to DO subjectivity, but I see that this is
contingent on the existence of objectivity. We need both. To see the
balance we need to understand and cherish subjectivity. Just as we can't
attain perfect objectivity, we can't totally transcend our inherently
subjective nature. The present state of enquiry in academia is out of
balance. The balance is the goal. The middle way.

Regards,

Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
University of Queensland
religionbazaar.blogspot.com


jason winslade wrote:
> Should we really assume that "objectivity" and science are unassailable
> discourses? That they are the norm from which experiential data
> deviates? This is a whole other can of worms, but attaching 'scientific'
> to scholarly discourse makes a whole other set of assumptions that are
> just as flawed as subjectivity.
> jlw
> 
> --- On *Mon, 12/15/08, Shaz Dair /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
> 
>     From: Shaz Dair <[log in to unmask]>
>     Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theater and Magic(k)
>     To: [log in to unmask]
>     Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 4:54 PM
> 
> 
>     As scholars we have a duty to be objective and scientific.
>     As to the limits of scientifically studying personal human
>     experience, we can still step back from our current persona and
>     connect with other people in an attempt to share honestly our
>     experience and knowledge as well as our uncertainties.  Cultural
>     Anthropology is an excellent field for just this type of immersion
>     in the pool of our subject matter and then the time of sitting
>     beside the pool drying off.
>     As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living."
> 
> 
>     On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Arild <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>         > performances that incorporated spiritual discourse and embodied
>         > experience, especially at conferences; the SIEF conference
>         "Liberating
>         > the Ethnological Imagination," in Derry, N. Ireland last June had
> 
>         As a folklorist, I should say that in that case, SIEF has come a
>         long way in
>         the last 10 years. During my couple of decades in the Ethnology
>         and Folklore
>         Departement at the University of Bergen, this wold've been far from
>         happening. But so much the better!
> 
>         Arild
> 
> 
> 
> 

--