Jahn R G, Dunne B J
Explore (NY). 2007 May-Jun;3(3):295-305, 344. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2007.03.014.
Over the greater portion of its long scholarly history, the particular form of human observation, reasoning, and technical deployment we properly term "science" has relied at least as much on subjective experience and inspiration as it has on objective experiments and theories. Only over the past few centuries has subjectivity been progressively excluded from the practice of science, leaving an essentially secular analytical paradigm. Quite recently, however, a compounding constellation of newly inexplicable physical evidence, coupled with a growing scholarly interest in the nature and capability of human consciousness, are beginning to suggest that this sterilization of science may have been excessive and could ultimately limit its epistemological reach and cultural relevance. In particular, an array of demonstrable consciousness-related anomalous physical phenomena, a persistent pattern of biological and medical anomalies, systematic studies of mind/brain relationships and the mechanics of human creativity, and a burgeoning catalogue of human factors effects within contemporary information processing technologies, all display empirical correlations with subjective aspects that greatly complicate, and in many cases preclude, their comprehension on strictly objective grounds. However, any disciplined re-admission of subjective elements into rigorous scientific methodology will hinge on the precision with which they can be defined, measured, and represented, and on the resilience of established scientific techniques to their inclusion. For example, any neo-subjective science, while retaining the logical rigor, empirical/theoretical dialogue, and cultural purpose of its rigidly objective predecessor, would have the following requirements: acknowledgment of a proactive role for human consciousness; more explicit and profound use of interdisciplinary metaphors; more generous interpretations of measurability, replicability, and resonance; a reduction of ontological aspirations; and an overarching teleological causality. Most importantly, the subjective and objective aspects of this holistic science would have to stand in mutually respectful and constructive complementarity to one another if the composite discipline were to fulfill itself and its role in society.
在其漫长的学术历史的大部分时间里，我们恰当地称为“科学”的那种人类观察、推理和技术应用的特定形式，至少在很大程度上依赖于主观经验和灵感，就如同它依赖于客观实验和理论一样。只是在过去几个世纪里，主观性才逐渐从科学实践中被排除，留下了一个基本上世俗的分析范式。然而，最近，一系列新出现的无法解释的物理证据，再加上学术界对人类意识的本质和能力的兴趣日益浓厚，开始表明这种对科学的净化可能过头了，最终可能会限制其认识论的范围和文化相关性。特别是，一系列与意识相关的可证明的异常物理现象、持续存在的生物和医学异常模式、对心/脑关系和人类创造力机制的系统研究以及当代信息处理技术中不断增加的人为因素影响目录，都显示出与主观方面的经验相关性，这使得严格基于客观理由对它们的理解变得极其复杂，在许多情况下甚至无法理解。然而，任何将主观因素有纪律地重新纳入严谨科学方法的做法，都将取决于它们能够被定义、测量和表示的精确程度，以及既定科学技术对其纳入的适应能力。例如，任何新的主观科学，在保留其严格客观的前身的逻辑严谨性、经验/理论对话和文化目的的同时，将有以下要求：承认人类意识的积极作用；更明确和深入地使用跨学科隐喻；对可测量性、可重复性和共鸣性进行更宽泛的解释；降低本体论的抱负；以及一个总体的目的论因果关系。最重要的是，如果这门综合学科要实现自身价值并在社会中发挥作用，那么这种整体科学的主观和客观方面必须相互尊重并形成建设性的互补。
