Welcome to Gaia! ::

Science is objective?

Of course, Science deals with cold hard facts. 0.48453608247423 48.5% [ 47 ]
No, science is subject to human interpreatation and subjectivity. 0.41237113402062 41.2% [ 40 ]
I don't know. 0.10309278350515 10.3% [ 10 ]
Total Votes:[ 97 ]
< 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 24 25 26 > >>

Devoted Sweetheart

Eyerunny

Absence of a thing implies potential to have a thing, which is a thing.
An absolute truth of an absence of any absolute truth contradicts itself by being postulated as an absolute truth.
You concluded your post with that self-contradictory statement. If that was not the point you were making why say it, especially with a tone of finality?


Absence of a thing only implies potential if held within the bounds of existence. "Outside" of the universe, if you will, does not have the potential to be anything, as there is nothing from which something can emerge.

All that aside, it was more to say "I could be wrong with my previous opinions, because as we stand, we don't know." I was debating the merits of science as a religious concept, not that of existence itself.
Apoplexic
Eyerunny

Absence of a thing implies potential to have a thing, which is a thing.
An absolute truth of an absence of any absolute truth contradicts itself by being postulated as an absolute truth.
You concluded your post with that self-contradictory statement. If that was not the point you were making why say it, especially with a tone of finality?


Absence of a thing only implies potential if held within the bounds of existence. "Outside" of the universe, if you will, does not have the potential to be anything, as there is nothing from which something can emerge.

All that aside, it was more to say "I could be wrong with my previous opinions, because as we stand, we don't know." I was debating the merits of science as a religious concept, not that of existence itself.


You just said, "there is no such thing as nothing," but now you are postulating that there is an existing (non-)space where "there is nothing."

This degree of internal inconsistency on your end gives me the impression that anything you say on philosophical matters is of no value and should be disregarded.

Go learn about abstract objects if you're actually serious.

Devoted Sweetheart

Eyerunny
Apoplexic
"Outside" of the universe, if you will, does not have the potential to be anything, as there is nothing from which something can emerge.


You just said, "there is no such thing as nothing," but now you are postulating that there is an existing (non-)space where "there is nothing."

This degree of internal inconsistency on your end gives me the impression that anything you say on philosophical matters is of no value and should be disregarded.

Go learn about abstract objects if you're actually serious.


Duly not the quotation marks, and the "if you will" comment as well. I was taking an example from practical knowledge to use as a point. There is no "outside of the universe" as there can be no nothing.

But to each their own; I do not care what your impressions of me are, nor am I inclined to continue this conversation.

EDIT: I also clarified that I was discussing outside of existence. There is no outside of existence. Please don't pick one part of a post and pull it apart without taking the entire context into consideration.
Apoplexic
Eyerunny
Apoplexic
Eyerunny

Absence of a thing implies potential to have a thing, which is a thing.
An absolute truth of an absence of any absolute truth contradicts itself by being postulated as an absolute truth.
You concluded your post with that self-contradictory statement. If that was not the point you were making why say it, especially with a tone of finality?


Absence of a thing only implies potential if held within the bounds of existence.
"Outside" of the universe, if you will, does not have the potential to be anything, as there is nothing from which something can emerge.

All that aside, it was more to say "I could be wrong with my previous opinions, because as we stand, we don't know." I was debating the merits of science as a religious concept, not that of existence itself.


You just said, "there is no such thing as nothing," but now you are postulating that there is an existing (non-)space where "there is nothing."

This degree of internal inconsistency on your end gives me the impression that anything you say on philosophical matters is of no value and should be disregarded.

Go learn about abstract objects if you're actually serious.


Duly not the quotation marks, and the "if you will" comment as well. I was taking an example from practical knowledge to use as a point. There is no "outside of the universe" as there can be no nothing.

But to each their own; I do not care what your impressions of me are, nor am I inclined to continue this conversation.

EDIT: I also clarified that I was discussing outside of existence. There is no outside of existence. Please don't pick one part of a post and pull it apart without taking the entire context into consideration.

Oh, you want me to consider the entire context, while you removed the context from the quote tree?
This part of the context: "Absence of a thing only implies potential if held within the bounds of existence." certainly comes off as confrontational; as if you are intending to refute a point made, and you continued by citing a nothing you don't believe to even exist, falling back on the premeditated scare quotes when you're called out on it.

How silly of me not to understand you were just conceding the point in a pretentious manner!

I have doubts that a troll truly feels disinclined to continue their sophistry. Prove me wrong, okay?
frozen_water
Project 429
frozen_water
many people don't question science because they view it's results as fact.


Who?
Mainly those adhering to ideas such as Logical positivism or realism, although these terms are very specific and I'm inclined to think the population could be expanded to include anyone with similar views. Historically speaking these and similar ideas have been the majority view.


Um, logical positivism doesn't really have anything to do with taking science as gospel. If that were the case, we'd still be using phrenology. If you're an empiricist you're forced to ... not take things as gospel. That's kind of the point. Of course your senses are unreliable, but that's always tacitly acknowledged and is ultimately irrelevant to individual experiments.

I'm still so confused. The point of the thread is we should take science off the pedestal? What pedestal? Do you have any idea how hard it was to eject a creationist from the board of education where I lived? I wish we put this s**t on a pedestal. When did the empiricists get into the majority? What 'other' fields of study are equally reliable? Phrenology? Religion?

Noob

Science is based on limited human perception.
Religion is to lead limited human perception to clarity via said limited perception.

'K, can we stop arguin' now?
frozen_water
Riviera de la Mancha
Yes, interpretation is needed for analysis. What you don't get though is that the scientific method is just that; a method. Means of determining facts under the scientific method are not contingent on your opinion at all. The method merely assesses what is. To attempt to apply the scientific method to a discussion of what x means is an entirely separate stage and not to be confused with the scientific method, which is the essence and fundamental nature of science.
The scientific method (as a method) must be employed by humans, so the issue objectivity does not lie in the idea of the scientific method, but the execution. It is when I perform my tests, record my data, and analyze my results that subjectivity comes into play.

Quote:
So, while I already mentioned that facts themselves are meaningless, you muddle too much in assuming that its impossible to derive facts themselves because our giving them meaning will invariably to some extent include an element of the subjective.
How doesn't it? My interpretation of data is subjective, it's not as if given a set of data there is only one possible answer, there are virtually infinite numbers of possible explanations.

Quote:
And finally, not only is it entirely possible to account for variables, it also does not mean that a study was not objective because variables have a slight play in the results. And remember, by variables, I mean those other factual influences that effect scientific data (none of which are subjective, i.e. my will cannot change the constant force of gravity.).
1) How does one objectively decide what variable doesn't belong?
2)Who says the force of gravity is constant?

No... not at all. Your 'subjectivity' in your example would be a failure in applying and/or understanding basic math or other foundational principles. For example, if I am conducting an experiment to measure the PSI of a 10 lb. rock dropped from one story up, and I fail to properly apply the constant of gravity let's say, that does not demonstrate that science is subjective. That represents a fundamental failure of mine.

Your interpretation though has no bearing on THE ACTUAL DATA. If my data in our previous experiment reads as 20 PSI, my belief that it is 30 does nothing to the ACTUAL FACT that its still 20.

The function of your study determines that of course. If I am trying to measure someone's mass for example instead of weight, I need to account for gravity's pull, as it has nothing to do with how much mass is in an object. To include it in my calculations would be wrong. Really? Who says gravity is constant? Gravity for one.
frozen_water
IronySandwich
hahahalolwut
IronySandwich
Yes, that's what I said, philosophy generally requires it's ideas to adhere to rules of logic, but certain philosophies aside (scepticism, empiricism, etc) there is no requirement that these ideas actually be tested against observation.


you can't test high-level math against observation, either.

True, math as a "way of knowing" is an entire discussion on it's own, but beside the point here since that's not what the topic is proposing.

To sum up the argument

1) As a means of finding the truth, science has flaws.
2) As a means of finding the truth, religion has flaws.
3) Therefore science and religion are flawed to the same degree.

Sort of like how a basketball and a fork are both not perfect spheres and are therefore equally round.
That is not what the point was at all. The point is not that science is flawed, but hat science is subjective just like any other field of study( and yes I am specifically comparing it to other fields of study because even in the realm of academia people place science as seperate, a scientific argument often carries more weight than a philosophical one).

The point is that peolple place science on some pedestal above other fields, science is revered in today's society, and it is comparable to a religion in the way people often don't question it ( assuming ti's objective and therefore somehow science produces absolute "truths" ) and even in the way people retaliate when somoone else does.

The religion comment is not to declaim science, but to point out the way it's idolized.


That is exactly the point. If you aren't saying that they're equal then you have no cause to complain about it being "placed on a pedestal".

Science is revered because it works. And your assertion that people don't question it beyond ignorant. The reason science works is because questioning conclusions is the very heart of what it is. To say people don't question science is the same as saying soccer players don't kick a ball. It's the entire point.

Enduring Conversationalist

6,750 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
frozen_water
BlackBeltMan
I remember that story, asked my professor about it, and they said things have changed for the better since then, much more scrutiny.
How can you show there is more scrutiny? If anything the pressure is higher than ever for scientists to produce groundbreaking results, I see no reason to believe it's decreased.
Well I was trying to say that before actually, about how there is more scrutiny. Can you show that there isn't? Is there as little now as there was then?

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
Project 429
frozen_water
Project 429
frozen_water
many people don't question science because they view it's results as fact.


Who?
Mainly those adhering to ideas such as Logical positivism or realism, although these terms are very specific and I'm inclined to think the population could be expanded to include anyone with similar views. Historically speaking these and similar ideas have been the majority view.


Um, logical positivism doesn't really have anything to do with taking science as gospel. If that were the case, we'd still be using phrenology. If you're an empiricist you're forced to ... not take things as gospel. That's kind of the point.
I think the opening of the OP lead you astray. I'm not defending the idea of science = religion, I was just drawing some parallels to make a point. I've reworded the OP now because it seemed too many seemed to be misunderstanding me.

Logical Positivism relies upon induction for the validity of it's theories, which as I've pointed out earlier has it's issues. This is not the same as taking science as a gospel, nor am I saying it is.
Quote:
Of course your senses are unreliable, but that's always tacitly acknowledged and is ultimately irrelevant to individual experiments.
Technology is unreliable as well, and how is the fact that such things are unreliable irrelevant?

Quote:
I'm still so confused. The point of the thread is we should take science off the pedestal? What pedestal? Do you have any idea how hard it was to eject a creationist from the board of education where I lived? I wish we put this s**t on a pedestal. When did the empiricists get into the majority? What 'other' fields of study are equally reliable? Phrenology? Religion?
When you look at who we consider the "intelligent" people in society (This is not limited to America) the most brilliant are seen as scientists. Stephen Hawking, Einstein, by popular opinion these are the people who are seen as the brightest, because when it comes to literature and art, if I like what you do it's just a matter of opinion, just because that seems to be a really nice book you wrote it can't be objectively good, not like Einstein's theory, which is supported by facts. The government (here I'm speaking to the US government although it's hardly the only one) sees science as more important, it supplies over 30 billion dollars to the NIH alone.

I'm not saying these things are inherently bad, but should we write a blank check to science, just because it's science? Should a scientists argument be more valid than a writers?

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
Riviera de la Mancha
frozen_water
Riviera de la Mancha
Yes, interpretation is needed for analysis. What you don't get though is that the scientific method is just that; a method. Means of determining facts under the scientific method are not contingent on your opinion at all. The method merely assesses what is. To attempt to apply the scientific method to a discussion of what x means is an entirely separate stage and not to be confused with the scientific method, which is the essence and fundamental nature of science.
The scientific method (as a method) must be employed by humans, so the issue objectivity does not lie in the idea of the scientific method, but the execution. It is when I perform my tests, record my data, and analyze my results that subjectivity comes into play.

Quote:
So, while I already mentioned that facts themselves are meaningless, you muddle too much in assuming that its impossible to derive facts themselves because our giving them meaning will invariably to some extent include an element of the subjective.
How doesn't it? My interpretation of data is subjective, it's not as if given a set of data there is only one possible answer, there are virtually infinite numbers of possible explanations.

Quote:
And finally, not only is it entirely possible to account for variables, it also does not mean that a study was not objective because variables have a slight play in the results. And remember, by variables, I mean those other factual influences that effect scientific data (none of which are subjective, i.e. my will cannot change the constant force of gravity.).
1) How does one objectively decide what variable doesn't belong?
2)Who says the force of gravity is constant?

No... not at all. Your 'subjectivity' in your example would be a failure in applying and/or understanding basic math or other foundational principles. For example, if I am conducting an experiment to measure the PSI of a 10 lb. rock dropped from one story up, and I fail to properly apply the constant of gravity let's say, that does not demonstrate that science is subjective. That represents a fundamental failure of mine.

Your interpretation though has no bearing on THE ACTUAL DATA. If my data in our previous experiment reads as 20 PSI, my belief that it is 30 does nothing to the ACTUAL FACT that its still 20.

The function of your study determines that of course. If I am trying to measure someone's mass for example instead of weight, I need to account for gravity's pull, as it has nothing to do with how much mass is in an object. To include it in my calculations would be wrong. Really? Who says gravity is constant? Gravity for one.
Where do you think we got the "constant of gravity"? Someone did some calculations, and that was their best guess at what was going on. It's not a fact, it can't be proven, it's the idea someone came up with to try and explain something they observed. It wasn't handed down to us perfect and infallible from some perfectly objective source.

What if there is no gravity? What if god is just pushing that rock down? You can't prove otherwise. There are plenty of reasons to believe that it's actually gravity, but you can't prove that objectively, it's still just your interpretation.

Also, gravity may not be constant.

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
IronySandwich
frozen_water
IronySandwich
hahahalolwut
IronySandwich
Yes, that's what I said, philosophy generally requires it's ideas to adhere to rules of logic, but certain philosophies aside (scepticism, empiricism, etc) there is no requirement that these ideas actually be tested against observation.


you can't test high-level math against observation, either.

True, math as a "way of knowing" is an entire discussion on it's own, but beside the point here since that's not what the topic is proposing.

To sum up the argument

1) As a means of finding the truth, science has flaws.
2) As a means of finding the truth, religion has flaws.
3) Therefore science and religion are flawed to the same degree.

Sort of like how a basketball and a fork are both not perfect spheres and are therefore equally round.
That is not what the point was at all. The point is not that science is flawed, but hat science is subjective just like any other field of study( and yes I am specifically comparing it to other fields of study because even in the realm of academia people place science as seperate, a scientific argument often carries more weight than a philosophical one).

The point is that peolple place science on some pedestal above other fields, science is revered in today's society, and it is comparable to a religion in the way people often don't question it ( assuming ti's objective and therefore somehow science produces absolute "truths" ) and even in the way people retaliate when somoone else does.

The religion comment is not to declaim science, but to point out the way it's idolized.


That is exactly the point. If you aren't saying that they're equal then you have no cause to complain about it being "placed on a pedestal".

Science is revered because it works. And your assertion that people don't question it beyond ignorant. The reason science works is because questioning conclusions is the very heart of what it is. To say people don't question science is the same as saying soccer players don't kick a ball. It's the entire point.
I think they are equal though, or at least have the potential to be. Obviously there are varying levels of legitimacy within any field.

No it's not. There's reasons to believe people (note I never said ALL people) aren't as critical of science as they should be. Major cases of scientific fraud only come to light far after the results were already accepted and distributed because no one wanted to question the scientist.

It's obvious to anyone who understands how research and writing goes in the field of academia that science is highly politicized.

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
BlackBeltMan
frozen_water
BlackBeltMan
I remember that story, asked my professor about it, and they said things have changed for the better since then, much more scrutiny.
How can you show there is more scrutiny? If anything the pressure is higher than ever for scientists to produce groundbreaking results, I see no reason to believe it's decreased.
Well I was trying to say that before actually, about how there is more scrutiny. Can you show that there isn't? Is there as little now as there was then?
I've already established there was an issue with scrutiny, why would I just assume that changed without any reason?

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Pure comedy gold. This whole thread is hilarious. Using scientific inventions to express that science is religion. I'm nearly breathless here laughing.

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
dh8d1
Pure comedy gold. This whole thread is hilarious. Using scientific inventions to express that science is religion. I'm nearly breathless here laughing.
You must not have read the thread very well.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum