You either don't get it or you're just playing the wise guy : which is it ?
I am gonna repeat myself again as PEAR made it so clear :
There is no separation between the observer and the observed ,or between the subjective and the objective : they are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other ,and hence science 's methodology and epistemology as well as its vocabulary must change accordingly and must be extended as to include the subjective : that's what PEAR calls : subjective science .
And NO , materialist science does not include the subjective since materialism assumes that consciousness is either in the brain,is identical with brain activity or just an allegedly useless side effect or by-product of evolution without any causal effects on matter , and since materialism assumes also that the objective reality out there is independent from the observer ............
Got it now ?
Well, I think I got it, but I'm not sure you're getting me.
Take Dean Radin's experiment involving the double slit experiment. In this experiment he is setting out to test whether our attention can influence the results.
I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that that's an example of what you mean by bringing consciousness into experiments.
And as far as I can tell, Radin's experiment does not require any departure from the scientific method as we currently recognise it.
The same goes for every parapsychological experiment that I know of.
Radin's goals are the same as any scientist: to produce repeatable, reliable evidence of his hypothesis. His goal, like any other scientist, is to do so in a way that identifies and reduces risk of error/bias. People can debate how successful he was in obtaining the goal, and what can be reliably concluded from the experiment but that's a different question.
As I see it, Radin applied the scientific method as we know it to study the effects of consciousness.
If that's not what you're referring to, then maybe you can
As far as what "materialism" assumes - again, you're talking about the hypothesis formation, not about the methodology being used.
I am completely open, by the way, to other methods being used than the scientific method to explore these topics. I just haven't as yet heard anyone describe exactly what those methods should be, and the reasons for considering it to be effective.
Again - don't intrepret me as saying no such method is possible. I'm only saying that I haven't seen a fully fleshed out proposal for such a method.
You mentioned PEAR's subjective science. Look at how they put it in this article:
https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-science-subjective.pdf
There is no more critical test of the integrity of any scientific process than its reaction to anomalous features uncovered in either its experimental or theoretical endeavors, i.e., empirical observations demonstrably inconsistent with established theoretical expectations, or theoretical predictions that conflict with established experimental data. Such anomalies demand immediate attention to discriminate between artifacts of flawed experimentation or theoretical logic, and the entry of genuine new phenomena onto the scientific stage. Error in this discrimination can divert or extend science along false scholarly trails, while proper identification and assimilation of real anomalies can open more penetrating paths than those previously followed.
PEAR is not here recommending some radical new method. Their focus is on:
- empirical observation, and
- using methodology to reduce risk of error/bias (they put it as "discriminate between artifacts of flawed experimentation"
The concern of the scientific method, imo, is not whether evidence is "objective" or "subjective" - rather it is with the validity and reliability of the evidence, regardless of whether it is subjective or objective.
Note what the author's write:
Inclusion of subjective information within the framework of science clearly constitutes a huge analytical challenge.
As I understand it, the focus of their article is on whether subjective information can be reliably used in the scientific method. They are not saying that the scientific method cannot accept subjective information and that therefore a new method should be developed. Rather, they are focused on figuring out how to study the subjective in a reliable way that reduces bias/error.
They write:
But quantifiable alteration of the objective information content of a physical or biological system by some attending consciousness, while far more difficult to demonstrate and vastly more controversial to discuss, has also been convincingly established over recent decades, by reputable scholars working in many venues.
Now, as they allude to, one can debate just how convincing this or that experiment is. But for the purpose of this discussion note again that this is entirely within the purview of the scientific method.
More on this:
The thesis is thus that science must soon make a deliberate and considered choice whether to continue to deny all subjective currency access to its table of scholarly business, thus excluding itself from comprehension of the universe of aesthetic and creative experience, including that which bears on objective effects, or to broaden its purview to encompass these softer parameters in some disciplined yet productive fashion. The scientific method and the scientific attitude, as defined above, should tolerate, indeed should encourage, provisional exploration of the disciplined re-inclusion of subjective concepts and properties within the enterprise of the natural research sciences.
Again note what they are saying and not saying:
- They are saying that the current scientific method should consider subjective evidence valid.
- They are not saying that this involves scraping or majorly amending the scientific method
They argue for the inclusion of subjective evidence in science. Not the replacement of the scientific method with a new method.
They even quote William James on this very point!
The spirit and principles of science are mere affairs of method; there is nothing in them that need hinder science from dealing successfully with a world in which personal forces are the starting point of new effects
I bolded the entire thing to hit the point home. Pear is arguing that the the scientific method is well suited to the study of the subjective. They are not proposing an entirely new method.
This is getting long, so I'll include one final quotation from this article:
Closely related to the issue of replicability is the need to identify viable quantifiers and standards of the subjective coordinates and properties that will appear in the data and the models.
Again: pure scientific method.
PEAR, from what I can tell, wants to bring consciousness into the scientific method. Not replace the method with something else.
If there is anything that I've written here that you disagree with, please let me know.