Kosso Chapter 7 Reflections

Kosso strikes again. I really enjoy this book.

pg. 124, "Observations...are themselves, assertive beliefs...they are described and justified under the influence of other beliefs...other assertive claims within our awareness...always comparing theory against theory...are not avoidable complications..."

pg. 125, "In science, no one ever gets a look at the answer key."

pg.127, "Effects are all we have to work with."

Perhaps I'm being a bit of a hard-head but I cannot help but to ask this question: if all we have to ask about the unobservables/lack of ability to discover the "correspondence-to-the-facts truth" is based on what we currently know (our inferences and assertive beliefs also known as theoretical claims), or what Kosso describes as being stuck at the effects end of the chain even though we are interested in the causal end, how can we then make the predictions -- especially in cases of low-levels of observability, i.e. cosmic activity, atomic activity, or the like -- that "effect x is indicative of cause y?" Is it really fair to say that we would have the ability to predict effect x, based off of cause y...if we do not understand cause y, but rather only are aware of its certain features?

Can we really find security in the notion of justification as coherence, if the "cohered" is a bunch of theories unable to be verified in an answer key? Kosso, in Chapter 7, makes the argument that coherence is indicative of truth. Sure, this may be so....I would love to believe that -- but I am so unsettled with the knowledge that people walk around with this supposed trophy of science that is incscripted with the words "science discovers truth" and/or "science is truth". Why, because other scientists understand a very different philosophical viewpoint...they say that the underlying philosophy of science is the fact that "we really can't discover truth. Instead, we can discover things that cohere with our current theories that we believe to be true, but aren't really sure because we don't have access to the answer key." These are very fundamentally different positions being held within the same field. There is a very popular statement within the culture of God, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." With very different fundamental beliefs...who knows what's really going on behind the scenes? It kind of scares me that the very foundation of science is divided in such a way. Sure The Church is divided on issues, but in the notion of its existence, the very fibers of its being, are a few foundational principles that we agree on that keep us standing: Our very existence is based off of the acknowledgement of the truth of the existence of God our Creator and His love for us by acting in that love and sending His Son, Jesus, to bridge the gap between Himself and His Creations (humans). That's the one thing that we ALL agree on no matter how differently we stand on different issues. This is the one fact that we all know and agree to, which is the very first and most crucial -- metaphorically speaking -- atomic building block of the elements that make us who we are. It has kept and keeps His kingdom standing in the earth for thousands of years, continuing to grow and that extends into eternity and beyond -- despite other influences, anger, contention, and social change. It goes beyond even the universe!


But to prevent myself from digging deeper into that subject matter, allow me to conclude with Kosso's -- what I like to call -- new definition of objectivity. I mean, just in googling the definition of objectivity, I saw a load of very different interpretations mostly referring to the ones studying the predicament. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:objectivity&ei=l4kHSuaxKKDqtQPc55HsAQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

To hear Kosso explain and define objectivity the way he does, is hilarious. I feel that it helps to pinpoint the exact meaning of objectivity -- insofar as human reason and understanding allow -- a meaning that, even through careful and attentive cross-examination and attack comes, will withstand. "An attitude of openness to challenge...." and as Kuhn adds, "...from different paradigms that include different language, scientific procedure, and "good-bad" criteria for evaluation." This claim is so bold and amazes me that it shines such true light of the truth, really.

Just as a post-script I will say, I'm happy to see that Kosso admits to how science can be wrong in chapter 7. It's comforting...as a human endeavor influenced by MANY things -- as Latour explains -- humanly speaking, it is VERY VERY VERY hard to make completely accurate assertions of the world; to take it a step further, without God. What's funny is, we talked about this notion in our Business Ethics class. Science was born out of the desire for people to get away from having to "consult" the Creator. It's hilarious that it now runs into these predicaments and makes the philosophical discoveries they have made -- "we can't get to the truth". When all the while, He was just seeking a heart-felt effort to know Him and His creation. He gladly gives answers. I'm an example of that.