frozen_water
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.
The force of gravity can and has been proven. Its not a guess at all. Its not called the Law of Universal Gravitation for a reason.
Even if we assume that gravity is not a constant though, that only addresses the one point of gravity. My larger point remains- there are objective facts, which do not bend to your will. Even from your own link, the presence of a black hole and its effect on gravity is a natural occurrence, which, if we are to belief the professor, means that we can measure it and quantify a black hole's effect on it. If its true, my or your opinion does not effect this at all.
Again, you muddle- the possibility of other options does not in any way have a thing to do with objectivity. Objectivity is looking at information and reality and assessing from that what is. Of course something can ALWAYS POSSIBLY be something else. That, however, is speculation, and is the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges for the purpose of understanding scientific study.
400
100
150
