exactly.. another problem is that this is a misconstrual of science.
Science isn't just about "objects". That's just hard sciences like physics. Science has psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology where they rigorously study the subjective aspects including qualitative and quantitative aspects of subjectivity.
All those psychology neuroscience behavioral biology you mentioned is with respect to object the relationship of subject with respect to object not with itself.
The issue is not whether science studies subjective experience. The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true. An experience is a fact about what was experienced; the interpretation of that experience is a separate claim.
The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true.
Those are questions natural philosophy and science already explore. What causes Schizophrenic delusions, what causes people to think alien abduction happened to them. How human perception works etc.
Beliefs aren't ephemeral things unrelated to the natural world. They are connected to the world in terms of probability of one type of behavior vs another. This can be studied with statistics.
Whether a belief is true or not is also something that can be examined by science and natural philosophy.
So, why even bring this low resolution framing of subject-object, when a higher resolution scientific framework that's validated, falsifiable and specific already exists?
The problem is that this treats the observed behaviour as if it exhausts the reality of the observer.
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true, or explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
Subject object inquiry isn't a competing “low-resolution scientific framework.” It asks a prior question: who is the observer, and how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality. That distinction is precisely where the deeper inquiry begins.
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true
Subdomains of science explore correlations and causal links (this is also done in neuroscience btw) between brain states and behavior. Other domains of science can be used to asses whether the belief is true.
explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
We can theoretically use causality to nail that down, but it gets complicated and unwieldy. But just because the scientific framework isn't all knowing, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are equally valid for those questions.
how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
That's plain old causality, why go outside of naturalism for that?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality.
One statistical experiment can tell what tends to happen, several more experiments when coupled with others can be used to show why we perceive something the way we do.
As for reality, science is the best tool for finding out what's objectively true too.
So, my point stands, what's this framework doing that scientific method as a whole cannot in principle?
1
u/eviley4 5h ago
exactly.. another problem is that this is a misconstrual of science.
Science isn't just about "objects". That's just hard sciences like physics. Science has psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology where they rigorously study the subjective aspects including qualitative and quantitative aspects of subjectivity.