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 ]

[frozen_water]

Science is the new Religion.

Or so it's been said anyway. People have increasingly turned from their antiquated religions to take up the reigns of science and it's "objective" revelations.

The idea of science seems to be that it accumulates facts and slowly progresses closer to real truth. This idea has it's issues though. To begin with how can we know science is progressing towards "truth" if we don't have any way of defining truth on it's own.
What we see as true is most often defined in terms of what we can observe and measure, AKA science. (See: Wittgenstein on Rules)

The problem is not that Science is bad, I think it's a beautiful subject which helps us find some clarity in our thoughts and beliefs, however people seem to put too much faith in science as some infallible "god" as it were. They view science as the final word, without questioning whether or not the very nature of science prevents it from being objective. It's important to realize that science like any other field is wrought with issues of human subjectivity and error, as it all requires some level of interpretation and analysis.

Science is subjective just like any other field, so society's impassioned elevation of science onto a god-like pedestal does not serve science well.

NOTE: Just to clarify as the issue seems to have some up more than once, the term "science" as used here is describing the field of study.

REFERENCE MATERIAL:

Definitions:
Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

Subjective - characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Related Terms:
- Wittgenstein on Rules
- Logical Postivism
- STS Studies

[Andy Worhal]

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

[frozen_water]

Andy Worhal

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

Makes sense, I wonder what, if anything could replace science?

[Andy Worhal]

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

Makes sense, I wonder what, if anything could replace science?

science has been replaced, all science provides is security, just like god does

[frozen_water]

Andy Worhal

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

Makes sense, I wonder what, if anything could replace science?

science has been replaced, all science provides is security, just like god does

What has science been replaced by?

I was viewing it as in a succession of beliefs, science being the most current.
Multiple gods -------> Single God --------> Science ---------> ?

[Andy Worhal]

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

Makes sense, I wonder what, if anything could replace science?

science has been replaced, all science provides is security, just like god does

What has science been replaced by?

I was viewing it as in a succession of beliefs, science being the most current.
Multiple gods -------> Single God --------> Science ---------> ?

porn, sex, plastic surgery, cars that drive faster than the speed limit, other religions besides abrahamic and pretty much everything that gives people meaning or a temporary source of narcissistic supply

[Fermionic]

Science is the application of the scientific method, which in turn is the analysis of observations made in a manner that can be reproduced and scruntinised. To say that it is an issue that nobody questions science shows a vital issue in your understanding; questioning and doubting are the core tennets of the scientific method.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

Science is the application of the scientific method, which in turn is the analysis of observations made in a manner that can be reproduced and scruntinised. To say that it is an issue that nobody questions science shows a vital issue in your understanding; questioning and doubting are the core tennets of the scientific method.

I never said nobody questions within science, I said that many do not question the subjective nature of science. It is often viewed as an objective element, when it isn't.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

The issue is not with the nature of science, nor is accurate to assert that science is subjective.

The nature of science (the scientific method) is not itself problematic; its merely a process of analysis. Abstract processes, unless internally illogical or inconsistent, have no inherent problems. If they have issues, it is with their implimentation.

To say science is subjective is just plain wrong. I can't (without being discredited and barred from my field) make up evidence, nor does my own beliefs about the non/existence of facts, influence science.

What is accurate though is to point out the limits of the scientific method in determining things like the truth. People far too often equate factual assessments with the truth, but that is not the case. Factual determinations as measured by science only result in those things which are quantifiable. Things which cannot be quantified, but are none the less relevant to the assessment of truth, are thus left out.

Equally true is that facts themselves are often meaningless. Scientists, and other 'educated' persons, often ascribe, without realizing it, values to facts based on the circumstances they find themselves in or with the goals they are seeking to achieve. Facts are things; putting on a lab coat and acting as if its conclusions are always entirely self-evident doesn't obfuscate this. Intepretation is needed to give facts a value, and interpretation is always subject to error.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

Fermionic

Science is the application of the scientific method, which in turn is the analysis of observations made in a manner that can be reproduced and scruntinised. To say that it is an issue that nobody questions science shows a vital issue in your understanding; questioning and doubting are the core tennets of the scientific method.

I never said nobody questions within science, I said that many do not question the subjective nature of science. It is often viewed as an objective element, when it isn't.

The subjective side of science, as in, the manner in which people construct their theories based on what they consider explains the most phenomena.
It is not that such things claim to be objective fact, as they are not. The issue is that the ignorant masses consider it as such, and reference it as such. The fault lays in perception and use of science, not in its subjectivity.

My response was intended to combat the issue you are having in the consideration of science as a religion.

[All_The_Worlds_a_Stage]

Of course it's subjective.

Reality is hardwired into our brains, scientific rules are just us making sense of the laws by which we seem to be subjected that produce our experiences. Some of these are self imposed laws, but all, are simply a perception. Knowledge of science gives us practical abilities that dwarf what our ancestors had.

Hard physics is objective but there is always the possibility that there exist beings that are not subject to these natural laws. From their point of view they would simply be part of our programming or not exist.

I think everything on this earth abides by the laws of science but everything? Who knows. Probably not.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

Science is the application of the scientific method, which in turn is the analysis of observations made in a manner that can be reproduced and scruntinised. To say that it is an issue that nobody questions science shows a vital issue in your understanding; questioning and doubting are the core tennets of the scientific method.

I never said nobody questions within science, I said that many do not question the subjective nature of science. It is often viewed as an objective element, when it isn't.

The subjective side of science, as in, the manner in which people construct their theories based on what they consider explains the most phenomena.
It is not that such things claim to be objective fact, as they are not. The issue is that the ignorant masses consider it as such, and reference it as such. The fault lays in perception and use of science, not in its subjectivity.

My response was intended to combat the issue you are having in the consideration of science as a religion.

The ignorant masses are often the ones conforming to religions, aren't they?

[AliKat1988]

The way some people interpret scientific findings is indeed problematic and far from objective. The scientific method itself is objective, but humans implement it and add subjectivity at the immediate results. Fortunately science corrects itself eventually so it is more objective than most human endeavors. It is the best shot at objectivity that we as very subjective creatures have.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

Science is the application of the scientific method, which in turn is the analysis of observations made in a manner that can be reproduced and scruntinised. To say that it is an issue that nobody questions science shows a vital issue in your understanding; questioning and doubting are the core tennets of the scientific method.

I never said nobody questions within science, I said that many do not question the subjective nature of science. It is often viewed as an objective element, when it isn't.

The subjective side of science, as in, the manner in which people construct their theories based on what they consider explains the most phenomena.
It is not that such things claim to be objective fact, as they are not. The issue is that the ignorant masses consider it as such, and reference it as such. The fault lays in perception and use of science, not in its subjectivity.

My response was intended to combat the issue you are having in the consideration of science as a religion.

The ignorant masses are often the ones conforming to religions, aren't they?

Hardly, I'm not so stupid to make such a frightful claim.
The ignorant masses are those that treat scientific theories as doubtless truth, that is the religious-like fanaticism you describe and wrongly ascribe to the nature of the scientific nature.

[frozen_water]

AliKat1988

The way some people interpret scientific findings is indeed problematic and far from objective. The scientific method itself is objective, but humans implement it and add subjectivity at the immediate results. Fortunately science corrects itself eventually so it is more objective than most human endeavors. It is the best shot at objectivity that we as very subjective creatures have.

Does science correct itself? I mean people come up with answers they think are more right, but how can we tell?