Objectivity is impossible. It is impossible for such a long list of reasons, from both the philosophical and the scientific perspectives, that I could not accurately list them all, nor explain them. For that reason, I'll utilize quantum physics as my reasoning. After all, who can argue with the laws of physics right? I'll answer that later.
Scientific, and for that matter journalistic, objectivity rests upon one general assumption: that there is an external world "out there", and an "I", which is "in here". Just dwell on that for a minute, and in so doing, ask yourself if that really makes any sense. If it does, try to explain it. It's a trick; you can't explain it any more than you can explain or prove whether or not the desk you are sitting in is actually there. Sure, laugh it up, but remember that those existential questions are the final frontier in the quest for real understanding of the human condition. I believe, more profoundly than ever, that the answers to all of our existential questions - those questions which cannot be answered because any answer will not align with our accepted view of reality and the physical laws that govern it - are found in the debate between what Gary Zukov calls the "old physics" and the "new physics" in his book The Dancing Wu Li Masters.
As a closet mystic and devout believer in the existential side of things, I have always felt that objectivity was at best a flawed concept and at worst a propagandistic tool to make damn sure we humans don't question our existence here on Earth too much. After all, things would break down pretty quick if all of a sudden huge populations began to question whether or not we create reality versus reality creating us. This is the territory of quantum mechanics, otherwise known as the new physics. The old physics, those of Newton, depend upon the basic assumption that there is a grand machine, which runs upon it's own accord, and that we humans essentially independent actors, incapable of adding to it or significantly altering how it operates. Further, Newtonian physics posits that if this or that is the case now, then this and that is going to happen next. In other words, it's predictable. This is of course evidenced by many basic physical laws, like if you drop two human beings out of 20 story window, they will both hit the ground at the same time, regardless of weight. The new physics, those of quantum mechanics, posit that if this and that is the case now, than the probability that this and that is going to happen next is....whatever it's calculated to be. Quantum mechanics works on probability, whereas Newtonian physics works on predictability.
Newtonian physics is irrelevant at the electron/proton level. This is relatively new knowledge. We used to think that the central laws of physics for two stones being dropped out of a window would be the same as the laws of two electrons jumping from shell to shell in the subatomic realm. In fact, subatomic particles are not visible in any way. We can measure the momentum of a particle or the position of a particle, but we cannot know both accurately. I don't yet understand why, but that is the case. But we can know approximately both pieces of data at the same time. Point being, there are no absolutes in the subatomic realm. Therefore, objectivity is even more of a farce.
Let's take it one more step. We do know that all matter is made of energy, and that energy is made of elections, protons, and all their little subatomic particle cousins. If we can only predict probabilities in the subatomic realm, why then should we assume that we can predict outcomes at the atomic level? Quantum mechanics says that we cannot observe, measure or speculate about the external world without changing it. This is precisely the opposite of Newtonian physics, which says that there is an external world that exists apart from us, and we are merely actors in that world. Perhaps it's important to point out here that Newton was devoutly religious and saw the study of physics as the explanation of the greatness of God.
If we accept the notion of Nobel Prize winning physicists all over the world that we cannot observe reality without changing it, it then becomes a very simple stretch to say objectivity is impossible, for one cannot observe anything without affecting it. Gary Zukov states that, "The problem that went unnoticed for three centuries is that a person who carries such an attitude (that of being objective) certainly is prejudiced. His prejudice is to be "objective," that is, to be without an preformed opinion. In fact, it is impossible to be without an opinion. An opinion is a point of view. The point of view that we can be without a point of view is a point of view."
As you can see, not only from a philosophical perspective, but from a quantum mechanical one as well, objectivity is essentially a myth we humans have created. Perhaps the smarter way to approach a subject is not from a point of invented objectivity, but from that of an open mind. Pay attention journalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment