Hi, Science Integrators,

This is Jack (Semura). I second Amanda's answer about objective truth. It reminds me of the reply: "There are no agnostics at thirty-thousand feet."

The term 'agnostics' in this saying refers to scientific agnostics, not to religious agnostics. Part of the flavor of the modern deconstructionist interpretation of science is that there is no objective truth in scientific fact and that we have essentially developed interpretation by collective agreement (a kind of cultural hypnosis based on our technical society). But when we're thirty-thousand feet in the air, it becomes much harder for scientific agnostics to maintain that we're just 'collectively agreeing on the interpretation' that we're flying.

I'd like to make two other points about the original 'objective truth" quotation posted by Todd.

First, I'd like to mention a kind of curious 'disembodied disconnect' (my invented term) that I've observed. I have had a number of discussions about this topic. I made the argument above (which is also essentially Amanda's original answer) that the reality of plane flight is real and not just a collective interpretation. Several times, in response, I've gotten a completely blank look in return, as if the person I was talking with just did not understand what was being said. The response I've gotten to the argument above is a blank look and the answer, "Well, my mind just doesn't operate that way." (Interpretation: "I just don't understand why you're talking about a plane flying.") What I find really interesting is that I've gotten this response only from very educated people. It almost seems as if it takes years of education to become intellectual enough so that, when I hit my head on a rock, I can then interpret the pain and the lump on my head as just a culturally interpretated relative reality, the "true nature of which we can never know." Physical reality is no longer understood as reality. There is a kind of strange disembodied disconnect between idea and physical reality. In this state, since ideas are more important than physical reality, it does become self-fulfillingly true that everything is interpretation. Let me ask a question: If it is true that some of the most 'educated' possess this disembodied disconnect, what relevance does it have to the goals of science integration?

Second: I think many of us would agree with snippets of the original quote by Schiff and Vaughn, or at least consider certain parts as serious questions to be thought about. I agree that the ways of knowing are not limited to the methods of science. But the quote has so many terms and phrases to define that it would take an essay to just agree on the terms (including truth, nature, reality, myth, etc.). Since there is so much to define, I guess I prefer the short answer that still makes a point: "There are no agnostics at thirty-thousand feet."

Have fun!
-Jack Semura