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 ]

[Fermionic]

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?

They better fit the observations, and make more accurate predictions for future phenomena.

[frozen_water]

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.

I'm specifically saying that people treat science like religion. So ignorant masses conforming to it with fanaticism is my point, I'm not sure I follow that last bit about scientific nature.

[Project 429]

Subjectivity is objective.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

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?

They better fit the observations, and make more accurate predictions for future phenomena.

How do we know they are more accurate?

[frozen_water]

Project 429

Subjectivity is objective.

I'm not sure I follow.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

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.

I'm specifically saying that people treat science like religion. So ignorant masses conforming to it with fanaticism is my point, I'm not sure I follow that last bit about scientific nature.

Your initial statement was that the issue lay with the subjectivity of science. That isn't correct.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

Fermionic

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?

They better fit the observations, and make more accurate predictions for future phenomena.

How do we know they are more accurate?

Repeating tests.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

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.

I'm specifically saying that people treat science like religion. So ignorant masses conforming to it with fanaticism is my point, I'm not sure I follow that last bit about scientific nature.

Your initial statement was that the issue lay with the subjectivity of science. That isn't correct.

I'm sure you misunderstood me. I perceive the issue as being the general view that science is not subjective as compared to other fields.

[AliKat1988]

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?

It is that as data accumulates if there are problems in a theory we will find them more and more and adjust to something that makes more sense with our understanding of the facts. We might not have found definitive proof for the new version of the theory, but we will know that it explains all related findings better than the previous version. If there are problems with the revised theory, we expect that further studies will identify them and we will adjust for them as the pattern seems consistent with alternate explanations.

However there are a lot of non-scientists who do not understand that this is how science works and they will latch onto individual studies and theories at the horror of most researchers. Their use of scientific findings is not science and should not be treated as such.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

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?

They better fit the observations, and make more accurate predictions for future phenomena.

How do we know they are more accurate?

Repeating tests.

That brings us to the problem of induction.

[Project 429]

frozen_water

Project 429

Subjectivity is objective.

I'm not sure I follow.

Objectivity may be subjective, but subjectivity is definitely objective.

[frozen_water]

AliKat1988

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?

It is that as data accumulates if there are problems in a theory we will find them more and more and adjust to something that makes more sense with our understanding of the facts. We might not have found definitive proof for the new version of the theory, but we will know that it explains all related findings better than the previous version. If there are problems with the revised theory, we expect that further studies will identify them and we will adjust for them as the pattern seems consistent with alternate explanations.

However there are a lot of non-scientists who do not understand that this is how science works and they will latch onto individual studies and theories at the horror of most researchers. Their use of scientific findings is not science and should not be treated as such.

There can be issues with the scientific findings themselves. The scientist who put out their results have to interpret the data every step of the way, meaning the end product isn't just pure facts. Even if people don't take the finding out of context, there is never a pure state of objectivity. (I'm not saying you never said this was this case I just think it's an important point to make while on the subject).

[AliKat1988]

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

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?

They better fit the observations, and make more accurate predictions for future phenomena.

How do we know they are more accurate?

Repeating tests.

That brings us to the problem of induction.

Which is why we make similar tests in scores of different ways and do not just assume we are done at any point. We know we are not and never will be done. Science is about what our current understanding and any real scientist will acknowledge the possibility that the theory they are testing could be proven wrong with enough evidence.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

Fermionic

Repeating tests.

That brings us to the problem of induction.

No it doesn't. This problem rests in the conception of what science is. It is not that tests are made and something is proclaimed true. This is where you are failing; nothing is deigned true in science. The approach is that "this theory has hitherto made correct predictions and full explanations of phenomena". It is not that "this is true". The subjectivity lays in the latter, as it involves the consideration that [a certain amount of] evidence constitutes the ability to righteously claim a thing as correct, incontravertibly. The former has no issue with subjectivity, as it is a factual overview of the situation.

frozen_water

Fermionic

Your initial statement was that the issue lay with the subjectivity of science. That isn't correct.

I'm sure you misunderstood me. I perceive the issue as being the general view that science is not subjective as compared to other fields.

frozen_water

They view science as the final word, without questioning whether or not the very nature of science prevents it from being objective.

The very nature of science doesn't prevent it from being objective, that is an inaccuracy, which is the point I have been making.

[AliKat1988]

frozen_water

AliKat1988

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?

It is that as data accumulates if there are problems in a theory we will find them more and more and adjust to something that makes more sense with our understanding of the facts. We might not have found definitive proof for the new version of the theory, but we will know that it explains all related findings better than the previous version. If there are problems with the revised theory, we expect that further studies will identify them and we will adjust for them as the pattern seems consistent with alternate explanations.

However there are a lot of non-scientists who do not understand that this is how science works and they will latch onto individual studies and theories at the horror of most researchers. Their use of scientific findings is not science and should not be treated as such.

There can be issues with the scientific findings themselves. The scientist who put out their results have to interpret the data every step of the way, meaning the end product isn't just pure facts. Even if people don't take the finding out of context, there is never a pure state of objectivity. (I'm not saying you never said this was this case I just think it's an important point to make while on the subject).

Which is why multiple scientists use multiple studies and are required to explain the methods of their studies in painful detail. If you read journal articles instead of popular media you will see what I mean. They also seek to measure their variables in very precise, validated ways to increase the accuracy of their findings. Additionally other scientists are allowed to reanalyze a colleague's data and interpret them-if you do not let people see your data then you will be viewed with suspicion.