Science is Not Objective.

Science is objective?

Of course, Science deals with cold hard facts.	48.5%	[ 47 ]
No, science is subject to human interpreatation and subjectivity.	41.2%	[ 40 ]
I don't know.	10.3%	[ 10 ]
Total Votes:			[ 97 ]

[Riviera de la Mancha]

frozen_water

Riviera de la Mancha

Even if we are to take that claim as true, that science can't help us ascertain what is objective, then you are essentially alleging that, when our mistaken ruler measured my notebook at 13 inches, and not its actual 12, this means we can never actually know the length of the notebook. If only we had selected a proper ruler the first time...

Is it an objective fact that the notebook is 13 inches? Obviously not, if all later measurements are reading 12 inches.

How ever you are measuring the object doesn't just produce objective facts, because the process has produced two different readings, both of which can't be right.

*Facepalm* You don't read with attention, do you? That might be the source of your muddling...

That is my whole point- that the malformed ruler read 13 inches has NO BEARING on the OBJECTIVE FACT that the notebook is really 12 inches. The issue with your position thus becomes quite clear through the rather bizarre triviality that, if we had just had the fortune of a proper ruler, you would agree that the measurement of the notebook is objective. Its a triviality, but entirely crucial to your position.

[frozen_water]

Riviera de la Mancha

frozen_water

Riviera de la Mancha

Even if we are to take that claim as true, that science can't help us ascertain what is objective, then you are essentially alleging that, when our mistaken ruler measured my notebook at 13 inches, and not its actual 12, this means we can never actually know the length of the notebook. If only we had selected a proper ruler the first time...

Is it an objective fact that the notebook is 13 inches? Obviously not, if all later measurements are reading 12 inches.

How ever you are measuring the object doesn't just produce objective facts, because the process has produced two different readings, both of which can't be right.

*Facepalm* You don't read with attention, do you? That might be the source of your muddling...

That is my whole point- that the malformed ruler read 13 inches has NO BEARING on the OBJECTIVE FACT that the notebook is really 12 inches. The issue with your position thus becomes quite clear through the rather bizarre triviality that, if we had just had the fortune of a proper ruler, you would agree that the measurement of the notebook is objective. Its a triviality, but entirely crucial to your position.

Use of the word muddle count: 5 (You do know how to use a thesaurus right?, although you may want a dictionary because at this point you aren't even using the word properly anymore.)

How do you know which ruler is the right one? I have two rulers, one is giving me 13 inches, another 12 inches. Which one is right?

The problem is that there is no real "inch" there is just an abstract concept which can never be perfectly replicated. So regardless of the ruler being used the measurements are only approximations relying upon the best object we have at hand. We could decide which ruler we think is better based on comparing our rulers to other rulers, but then the one we choose is just the better of the two, there is no perfect ruler we could compare it to so we know we got it right.

[Panda-Harlequin]

I disagree with you on two counts. The first is that science itself does not find itself infallible, as it is ever-changing in order to account for new data. For instance, science 300 years ago could not account for or understand much of the data we have come to realize 200 years ago or even last week. The second is that science has the subject of peer review which means that if someone does come up with something, then it is immediately peer reviewed by multiple people to make sure that the fact holds water, not to interpret what the fact means, but to interpret that when X happens, Y happens. Theories are then made to explain X and Y. Then those are peer reviewed to make sure no mistakes were made. If mistakes were made, then they are accounted for. Is it a perfect system? No, not even by a long shot. However, does it work? Yes, and it's the best we got right now. Should new data come up, we will incorporate it. Certain people tote science as the new religion, but that does not make it so.

[frozen_water]

Rainbowed-Panda

I disagree with you on two counts. The first is that science itself does not find itself infallible, as it is ever-changing in order to account for new data. For instance, science 300 years ago could not account for or understand much of the data we have come to realize 200 years ago or even last week.

Not all view science as infallible, but many see science as providing objective information which can be valued over subjective learning from other fields. The idea is that somehow science is factual where other fields are not.

Quote:

The second is that science has the subject of peer review which means that if someone does come up with something, then it is immediately peer reviewed by multiple people to make sure that the fact holds water, not to interpret what the fact means, but to interpret that when X happens, Y happens. Theories are then made to explain X and Y. Then those are peer reviewed to make sure no mistakes were made. If mistakes were made, then they are accounted for. Is it a perfect system? No, not even by a long shot. However, does it work?

Depends on what you mean by work. Does it serve the purpose of pooling data and producing theories? Yes. Does it produce facts? No.

Also, how familiar are you with the peer review process? It's not as clean cut as those in the field would have you believe.

Quote:

Yes, and it's the best we got right now. Should new data come up, we will incorporate it.

Define what you mean by incorporate.

Quote:

Certain people tote science as the new religion, but that does not make it so.

No, they aren't the same, but they do have many parallels.

[FlySammyJ]

Looks like someone sat through their first lecture on academic postmodernism. Good on you.

[Panda-Harlequin]

frozen_water

Depends on what you mean by work. Does it serve the purpose of pooling data and producing theories? Yes. Does it produce facts? No.

Nor did it ever claim to produce absolute 100% results. Science, itself, claims that should the data discredit the theory, the theory needs to change not the data. Now, will it piss some people off? Yes. Will it be inducted immediately? Probably not because people are pissed off.

frozen_water

Also, how familiar are you with the peer review process? It's not as clean cut as those in the field would have you believe.

Hence I said not a perfect system. Anything involving humans is bound never to be perfect.

frozen_water

Define what you mean by incorporate.

Assimilate, be accounted for, change something if it conflicts.

frozen_water

No, they aren't the same, but they do have many parallels.

I see some parallels in how people use them.

[frozen_water]

Rainbowed-Panda

frozen_water

Depends on what you mean by work. Does it serve the purpose of pooling data and producing theories? Yes. Does it produce facts? No.

Nor did it ever claim to produce absolute 100% results. Science, itself, claims that should the data discredit the theory, the theory needs to change not the data. Now, will it piss some people off? Yes. Will it be inducted immediately? Probably not because people are pissed off.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. I'm not claiming science serves no function, just that it is subjective.

Quote:

frozen_water

Also, how familiar are you with the peer review process? It's not as clean cut as those in the field would have you believe.

Hence I said not a perfect system. Anything involving humans is bound never to be perfect.

Agreed.

Quote:

frozen_water

Define what you mean by incorporate.

Assimilate, be accounted for, change something if it conflicts.

I ask because while things will be put into the "reservoir of knowledge" they won't necessary be accessible or easy to get ahold of.

Quote:

frozen_water

No, they aren't the same, but they do have many parallels.

I see some parallels in how people use them.

After replying to each part, it seems like we're saying the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've reached the same conclusion.

[Panda-Harlequin]

frozen_water

After replying to each part, it seems like we're saying the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've reached the same conclusion.

I think we may have taken different roads, but we've both come to the conclusion that science is not perfect, nor will it come up with 100% absolute facts because new data present itself, and that humans will inevitably foul it up because we make mistakes. However, I would assert that science (in its purest form) attempts to be objective.

[frozen_water]

FlySammyJ

Looks like someone sat through their first lecture on academic postmodernism. Good on you.

I've been taking classes on STS studies. (Science, Technology, and Society).

Not quite sure how they compare, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of overlap between the two.

[frozen_water]

Rainbowed-Panda

frozen_water

After replying to each part, it seems like we're saying the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've reached the same conclusion.

I think we may have taken different roads, but we've both come to the conclusion that science is not perfect, nor will it come up with 100% absolute facts because new data present itself, and that humans will inevitably foul it up because we make mistakes. However, I would assert that science (in its purest form) attempts to be objective.

I certainly think it attempts to be, but many people confuse this attempt with the actual results.

[FlySammyJ]

frozen_water

FlySammyJ

Looks like someone sat through their first lecture on academic postmodernism. Good on you.

I've been taking classes on STS studies. (Science, Technology, and Society).

Not quite sure how they compare, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of overlap between the two.

In my understanding, STS is a buzzword for postmodern studies, which vastly oversimplified is the idea that any scientist brings his own perspective with him to his study. It's why we anthropologists have been including an early chapter in ethnographies for the past few decades, detailing the researcher and her biases. "Postmodernism," however is an ambiguous interdisciplinary term (especially in the art world) that has found disfavor in the current conservative social climate.

*Edited for a missing verb!

[frozen_water]

FlySammyJ

frozen_water

FlySammyJ

Looks like someone sat through their first lecture on academic postmodernism. Good on you.

I've been taking classes on STS studies. (Science, Technology, and Society).

Not quite sure how they compare, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of overlap between the two.

In my understanding, STS is a buzzword for postmodern studies, which vastly oversimplified is the idea that any scientist brings his own perspective with him to his study. It's why we anthropologists have been including an early chapter in ethnographies for the past few decades, detailing the researcher and her biases. "Postmodernism," however is an ambiguous interdisciplinary term (especially in the art world) that has found disfavor in the current conservative social climate.

*Edited for a missing verb!

I'm a Philosophy major, and my university offers a fair number of STS courses I intend to take while I'm here. I find the whole business rather fascinating.

I've learned a lot about how academics in general function, (peer review, tenure, publishing papers, and copyright) and it's really changed my perspective on a lot of things. I can honestly say of all the classes I've taken thus far in my academic career, I've learned the most from my Ethics in Science class (essentially intro to STS) because it really provided my with an entirely new vantage point.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

frozen_water

The problem is that there is no real "inch" there is just an abstract concept which can never be perfectly replicated. So regardless of the ruler being used the measurements are only approximations relying upon the best object we have at hand. We could decide which ruler we think is better based on comparing our rulers to other rulers, but then the one we choose is just the better of the two, there is no perfect ruler we could compare it to so we know we got it right.

You are wrong about this. Abstract concepts are just as real as physical objects.

There doesn't need to be a standard ruler. In this case you have different rulers which each have an objective measure distance, assuming they are different in length.

[frozen_water]

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

The problem is that there is no real "inch" there is just an abstract concept which can never be perfectly replicated. So regardless of the ruler being used the measurements are only approximations relying upon the best object we have at hand. We could decide which ruler we think is better based on comparing our rulers to other rulers, but then the one we choose is just the better of the two, there is no perfect ruler we could compare it to so we know we got it right.

You are wrong about this. Abstract concepts are just as real as physical objects.

There doesn't need to be a standard ruler. In this case you have different rulers which each have an objective measure distance, assuming they are different in length.

If I'm aiming for something that is a foot in length, how can you determine it is precisely a foot in length?

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

The problem is that there is no real "inch" there is just an abstract concept which can never be perfectly replicated. So regardless of the ruler being used the measurements are only approximations relying upon the best object we have at hand. We could decide which ruler we think is better based on comparing our rulers to other rulers, but then the one we choose is just the better of the two, there is no perfect ruler we could compare it to so we know we got it right.

You are wrong about this. Abstract concepts are just as real as physical objects.

There doesn't need to be a standard ruler. In this case you have different rulers which each have an objective measure distance, assuming they are different in length.

If I'm aiming for something that is a foot in length, how can you determine it is precisely a foot in length?

0.3048*( The distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 of the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom)