Brad

Perspective is such an interesting thing, as one cannot define or use it objectively. Everything we do is affected by our perspective, how we view things in our world. In physics, its your frame of reference; in philosophy, it is called one's worldview. Everyone has one, whether they know it or not. It's just a matter of how.

For example, let's say that there are two people observing a airplane. One is watching from his front porch, contemplating the slow movement of the jet. The other is in a hot air balloon, watching the jet scream by for a landing at an airport. Both see the same jet, and both say it is moving. Both are stationary, and both comment on the speed. The one that is furthest away, however, does not see the plane as a fast moving object. If he didn't know better, he'd tell you that all airplanes are slow gliders. The other, though, is in the thick of things and sees a completely different sight. That plane is moving past him rapidly, at speeds unheard of for a hot air balloon. Even though they both are observing the same phenomenon at the same time with the same light, because of their predetermined positions they come to different conclusions. This is their frame of reference, their worldview.

This idea, that one’s starting convictions effect their observations, is not new. Sir Isaac Newton, asked about his accomplishments, once said “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It is because of the things he already knew from others that Newton was able to make his laws. The danger, as always, is if you are wrong.

In science, we like to ignore worldview, as it implies an interpretation of data based on unscientific means. Uncomfortable and unwanted, seeing something through the framework of  a worldview implies that a conclusion is biased, which is terribly unscientific.  There is, however, one slight problem with this approach - everyone is biased. By ignoring one's bias, we are allowing biases to go unnoticed and unchallenged. This also is terribly unscientific, as data from different sources must be reconciled if any definitive solution is to be reached.

So, what to do then? In order to communicate effectively, we must define some standard between us, linking all out worldviews into one. Yet there is no way to achieve such a standard short of something outside our universe, maybe even transcendent of time and space. The only thing I can think of that would fit such criterion would be God. Such a notion, however, is heavily resisted in the modern scientific arena, and it is nigh impossible to even comprehend just what God’s perspective would be in scientific matters. In the end, all we can do is agree that we don’t see things the same and find ways to work around our own viewpoints. The final triangulation of ideas will help us understand more about ourselves, as well as about the world at large.