"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
Thoughts?
That's unfalsifiable... you're changing the way you measure something, and then claiming that the thing you measured has changed dimensions. That may be the case, but there's no way to tell if it's actually true, or if it's simply an artifact of the new measurement method.
Something does not have to be proveable to be true. The quote comes from a description of quantum physics, where by simply observing a particle you affect it. In that case, the quote would really be When you look at things, they change. That of course would be a much less interesting and insightful quote.
However, I do believe there is a large degree of validity to this quote when applying it to an individual and life's issues. Often a person's perspective on an issue directly relates to their actions, and therefore causes a certain type of reaction by whatever 3rd parties are involved. By changing that person's perspective, you change the reaction, and thus the situation. That is how I understood the quote. The author of the quote (you can find from a google search) I believe took this to a whole different level, I belive his book is called "the power of intention". At any rate, I personally think he took this theory a bit too far, based on what I gathered watching him on PBS for 15 minutes or so.
At any rate, clearly an interesting, and debatable, quote.
I'd take a different approach than Tim here. I think you look at different things moreso than looking at the same things which have changed. For instance, an immature male, when looking at a woman, will evaluate various body parts between her neck and her knees. As that boy becomes older and (hopefully) more mature, he changes his way of looking at things, and instead of evaluating women on those features, he'll metaphorically look at her personality, sense of humor, intelligence, beliefs, et cetera, or, if you want something more physical, will look at her eyes, her smile, and the like. He's changed the way he looks at women, and looks at entirely different things. So you have a science-y answer from Tim, and a more philosophical (not the word I want, but it will suffice) one from me.
Actually, my answer is based on what philosophy I've picked up from Andy and Jon over the years, and not science-y at all, except inasmuch as science is based on philosophy. Philosophy is at its core about truth and the nature of the world, and the natural sciences (and indeed the scientific method) are a direct outgrowth of that. Your answer falls more into the realm of psychology, which is all about subjective perception of the world, which is okay if you are trying to change your or someone else's subjective perception (what a psychologist does when attempting to work through a neurosis), but is largely useless for drawing any sort of conclusions about the world around us. Look at the number of extant psychological theories: most contradict each other, but all are in use by one psychologist or another, and have been used to good result. The saying Dave posted may well belong to this category of statement, which makes it an aphorism -- something that sounds good, but has no meaning besides that which is assigned to it by the listener. (It can be argued that all language is a form of this, but I'll save that for later -- look up "intersubjectivity" if you're curious.)
Wow, guess I got more out of those dinner table discussions than I thought... but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
The terminology I associate with a science-y explanation -- "measurement", "dimensions", and even "unfalsifiable" (which strikes me as more of a logic statement than a reason statement, and I associate logic more with the hard sciences and reason with social/behavioral et al sciences, for various reasons). Moreover, it reminded me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which I'm sure I spelled wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the name -- the observation of electrons changing properties, which I'll avoid an explanation of because I'm sure you're more familiar with it than I am). So that could have greatly contributed to my categorizing it as a sciency answer.
Furthermore, you overstate the objective/subjective difference of philosophy and psychology as those fields are currently constructed (and have been for some time). A not uncommon occurence of practitioners overselling the value of their field, perhaps, not to knock Andy. Although, I might add that subjective considerations are not always a bad thing in that field; compare the advancements in economics when they finally realized that people are not rational actors.
Also, "the way you look at things" is inherently subjective. In fact, that's what subjectivity is all about. "The way you look at things" is subjective, the way things are is objective.
Oh, and I'm somewhat familiar with arguments that language has no meanign beyond that which is assigned to it by the listener (though usually as part of a philosophical system whose name escapes me (sorry, I'm quite tired) rather than intersubjectivity, though I have seen that term a few times before). Generally, I find them less than impressive.
Also, in my attempt at offering an explanation of the quote, I was trying to philosophically look at what it meant rather than find a philosophical meaning to the quote (if you see the difference I'm getting at). Even going back to your statements, you can objectively say there is subjectivity. Also, look at what would be the most plausible explanation of the quote by whoever created it, and I think my explanation of the quote is much closer to what they had in mind (though probably not my example -- and yes I realize that my comment was more example-based than explanation-based, except insofar as the example contributed to the explanation). Besides, going for the original meaning of the quote is more objective, while giving an explanation of what it means to you is more subjective, don't you think? ;)
I think I have been doing too much reading for classes lately on the participatory nature of constructing reality. Silly social constructionism.