Major Malfunction
You are completely missing the point.
I want you to explain to me why science is objective without resorting to tautologies like "science is objective because it studies objective things". You also need to do this without making the same arguments that Unchi made about art standards, because you have claimed those arguments are invalid and rude.
So far you have managed to copy Unchi's arguments almost exactly, which would normally be fine with me (because Unchi was right), except for the fact that you said she was egotistical and unaccepting of alternative viewpoints when she made those arguments.
No, you're missing the point.
I'm telling you it's about subjective and objective for the last 5 or so posts (and this is better than bumping the chatterbox) but you still don't get it.
I'm not saying science has or has no standards. I'll make an analogy, a really easy one to understand:
Person A: The world is full of mad and raving lunatics.
Person B: Why is that?
Person A: Because it is.
Person B: Isn't that just your opinion? I have met far more normal people than mad and raving lunatics.
Person A: But I'm saying so, because according to what I learned in my 156 years of experience, is that the world is full of mad and raving lunatics. That's the standard point of view.
Person B: I disagree with you. Tell me why is it that you think that-
Person A: Because it is.
Person B: ...without resorting to "because it is".
Person A: Aaah you're an idiot maniac can't speak anything recognizable I hate I hate I hate you!
This is an opinion discussion.
Person A: The human body can change colors.
Person B: Why is that?
Person A: Because we have a skin pigment called melanin who's affected by the exposure of UV rays we receive, and depending on the type and amount of it we get different results - colors.
Person B: That's just your opinion.
Person A: No, it's science. Scientists opened up the human body and studied why it's color varies due UV exposure, and found this substance that they called "melanin".
Person B: I disagree, I think this is just your opinion.
Person A: But it isn't, every human body has it and it is affected the way the scientists described. You thinking otherwise or saying I'm wrong won't change it, your skin color will still change as long as you're a human.
Person B: Okay.
Opinion is something based on your vision of the world (subject).
Science is something based on
the actual world (subject).
You can't apply the same concepts of what you do and want on one on the another. Just because you *think* the world is square, doesn't mean the world *is* square.
You might see it as square, who knows? It's your opinion. But not a fact.
Science exists to study the world how it actually is - not just someone's vision or opinions about it.
Science (or a part of it) is objective because it studies facts. There's a difference between laws, theory and theorems just for this.
Science also studies subjective matters, but they don't apply any standard (it would be stupid) to maintain the result as objective as possible, unbiased and clear. Otherwise it wouldn't be fact, but just another opinion (the scientist's, in this case).
And when I said Unchi's vision of art standards was invalid, that was my
opinion. They're not facts, it's how I think that thing is - and what I was trying to discuss.
Applying the same logic of thought you just gave me, then if I say "I kill bugs who annoy me" does that mean, if I met a human being who's lower than a bug in some theorical value I set up on my mind, I have the right to kill him if he annoys me?
Even though the "standard" is to kill some annoying bugs (I think everyone already killed a bug once) it doesn't apply to something else, does it?
By the way, I think you're roaming around, pointlessly, distorting, applying a biased point of view and generalizing everything you can just to make a point. And it amuses me.
What are you bringing up next? Some alien conspiracy that says Unchi is the artguy of doom and how I'd escape it?
