Comments

1. froggulper says:

   October 30, 2010 at 8:37 am

   I see what you’re saying and agree, but science doesn’t provide an objective point of view so much as it tries to use objectivism. For example, there have been different models of what we think atoms look like and how they operate. There’s the Bohr model, and there are more recent models utilizing particles and waves. And of course there’re theories about how all reality is nothing but vibrations. But they’re all models. They’re not reality but models of reality. And they change and improve. In a sense, they’re allegories, and the best one is that one that explains reality the best. Science is not THE ONE (objective) way of viewing reality; rather science is a series of techniques that incorporate and rely on objective thinking.

   Still, I think Luthor has it wrong too, because it’s not as though science teaches us that objectivity doesn’t exist. Science uses objectivity, but it does so to produce more than one explanation.

   Log in to Reply
2. Franktiger says:

   October 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm

   Totally get you, and I agree with much of what you say, but I think we’re dealing with a matter of semantics here, because one could still say science uses objectivism to provide an objective point of view, by definition. 

   Theoretical models are based on what evidence are provided to them by reality, and are an attempt to use the scientific method to provide the truth about uncertainties in reality, but it is still trying to provide an objective point of view of what exists. 

   And not all of science deals with only theories, there are things that by the scientific method we’ve been able to come to the truth about in no uncertain terms, and where we’ve been able to come to only one definite explanation for something; for example, science has been able to tell us, by the evidence provided by the scientific method, that the brainstem is made up of the midbrain, pons, and medulla, and that there are 12 cranial nerves whose nuclei originate in the various parts of the brainstem.  This is the only model one needs to know the truth about the anatomy of the brainstem, to have an objective point of view about it.

   Log in to Reply
3. JimBilly4 says:

   November 11, 2010 at 5:35 pm

   I think Lex was referring to the cornerstones of modern physics: Relativity, which clearly posits that there is no absolute framework from which the Universe can be viewed (everything is relative), and Quantum Mechanics, which not only describes everything in the universe in terms of probability but demonstrates that the act of observing changes reality. The universe has no center and God does play dice. Many people have adapted these physical notions into a post-modern concept of no absolute truths or morailty and complete subjectivity. Clearly Lex operates this way.  Of course science is about repeatable physical observation, so connecting it so directly to subjects of religion, philosopy, and morality is a bit dubious in my opinion. But he is a super-villain.

   Log in to Reply