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

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

This is false equivocation. It is objectively true that dry ice can feel hot, and objectively true that ice is not hot (as far as one can use the word "hot" as an absolute). They are not two facets of a personal perspectives, they are two separate objective claims of truth.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

This is false equivocation. It is objectively true that dry ice can feel hot, and objectively true that ice is not hot (as far as one can use the word "hot" as an absolute). They are not two facets of a personal perspectives, they are two separate objective claims of truth.

You're the own equivocating. I made it very clear what definition of objective I'm using, and per that definition dry ice is not objectively hot.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

This is false equivocation. It is objectively true that dry ice can feel hot, and objectively true that ice is not hot (as far as one can use the word "hot" as an absolute). They are not two facets of a personal perspectives, they are two separate objective claims of truth.

You're the own equivocating. I made it very clear what definition of objective I'm using, and per that definition dry ice is not objectively hot.

That is not the point being made.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

This is false equivocation. It is objectively true that dry ice can feel hot, and objectively true that ice is not hot (as far as one can use the word "hot" as an absolute). They are not two facets of a personal perspectives, they are two separate objective claims of truth.

You're the own equivocating. I made it very clear what definition of objective I'm using, and per that definition dry ice is not objectively hot.

That is not the point being made.

That's my point, I'm illustrating my usage of the terms. If Willow would like to debate said point that's great, otherwise she's merely using Equivocation and her point is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

This is false equivocation. It is objectively true that dry ice can feel hot, and objectively true that ice is not hot (as far as one can use the word "hot" as an absolute). They are not two facets of a personal perspectives, they are two separate objective claims of truth.

You're the own equivocating. I made it very clear what definition of objective I'm using, and per that definition dry ice is not objectively hot.

That is not the point being made.

That's my point, I'm illustrating my usage of the terms. If Willow would like to debate said point that's great, otherwise she's merely using Equivocation and her point is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.

Your usage of the term is perfectly clear, we aren't all so dense to be unaware of it at this stage. It is that you are unaware of the implications of your standpoint.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

This is false equivocation. It is objectively true that dry ice can feel hot, and objectively true that ice is not hot (as far as one can use the word "hot" as an absolute). They are not two facets of a personal perspectives, they are two separate objective claims of truth.

You're the own equivocating. I made it very clear what definition of objective I'm using, and per that definition dry ice is not objectively hot.

That is not the point being made.

That's my point, I'm illustrating my usage of the terms. If Willow would like to debate said point that's great, otherwise she's merely using Equivocation and her point is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.

Your usage of the term is perfectly clear, we aren't all so dense to be unaware of it at this stage. It is that you are unaware of the implications of your standpoint.

I'm well aware of my own standpoint and its implications thank you. How you presume to claim you know such a thing however, is a mystery to me.

[Fermionic]

frozen_water

I'm well aware of my own standpoint and its implications thank you. How you presume to claim you know such a thing however, is a mystery to me.

Likely as you've not demonstrated it.

frozen_water

My claim is my opinion, based on my interpretation.

That's clearly not objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

This, for instance. You show you are unaware of the nature of claims made as opinions.

[frozen_water]

Fermionic

frozen_water

I'm well aware of my own standpoint and its implications thank you. How you presume to claim you know such a thing however, is a mystery to me.

Likely as you've not demonstrated it.

frozen_water

My claim is my opinion, based on my interpretation.

That's clearly not objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

This, for instance. You show you are unaware of the nature of claims made as opinions.

This is a discussion, specifically related to science and it's objectivity (or lack there of) and that's what I've been discussing. I've had no reason to outline implications thus far.

Willow then quoted a statement I made with a post that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This hardly demonstrates I don't understand the implications of my own standpoint. Whether or not Objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive depends on the definitions being used, it's apparent that my usage within the given context makes them mutually exclusive.

If you want to make some point on the nature of objectivity and subjectivity go right on ahead, but that's not what I was discussing when our friend decided to quote me.

[Taikyoku]

It's not the science itself which is subjective, it's people's views on science which are subject to personal interpretation. Human error in the sciences does not make science itself subjective, it's simply one of those things we have to work around. It doesn't mean that you're free to interpret the data any which way you choose. Creative thinking is absolutely a must for problem-solving in science, yes, and I'm personally a very right-brained scientist, or at least a student aspiring very much to get a degree in a couple scientific fields, so I'm not saying creativity and science are at odds, quite to the contrary! But just because someone believes that, say, H20 is 19 grams per mole doesn't mean it actually is 19 grams per mole.

There is a real problem that has plagued the sciences for centuries, however. Group consensus builds to the point where science can build up a dogma around a model or a set of ideas, even if those ideas aren't quite right, or even if they're just flat-out wrong. The good news is that, in theory, scientists will be swayed by evidence, and one of the good things about science is that you can go back on your previous ideas, even ideas that you've championed, and you can actually be rewarded and heralded as a very good scientist for the very act of proving yourself wrong, and others would be right for saying so! The bad news is that sometimes dogma in the sciences can be very hard to shake, and scientists themselves are of course all too human. But that doesn't make reality other than what it is, it just means that we should exercise due care and caution when interpreting data and especially when coming to a final conclusion.

For lay people, I would say this: Do not assume that science has all the answers and that you can shrug your shoulders and say "I trust that science will figure it out," because that's no more intelligent than typing on a computer that "nobody needs science!" when you're using a product of science to say so. I hope, rather selfishly, that the day never comes when science has all the answers, because the principle joys of studying the world around us come from the questions rather than the answers, it's one of the reasons science can be a beautiful and deeply fulfilling, even spiritual thing. It, in and of itself, is not a new god. I would say that it is instead our means of studying the universe around us, and in so doing, perhaps gleaning some hint of how the old god thought. I am a pantheist, a Taoist, a psychonaut, a tripper, an aspiring chemist/astronomer/neuroscientist, and my studies are my way of incorporating my spiritual experiences into the world around me and doing my part to contribute to the rest of the universe. I wish I could more fully express how much it means to me, and how unfortunate it is when it's taken for granted or treated as an automatic fix. Science gives us the means to achieve our goals, but if we do not take it upon ourselves--and we must all take it upon ourselves--to cultivate the right mindset for its use, then it will be the means by which we destroy ourselves, and I can think of few things as tragic, unnecessary, and deeply perverted as the fatal misuse of the very thing that gives me joy and leaves me feeling fulfilled.

[frozen_water]

Taikyoku

It's not the science itself which is subjective, it's people's views on science which are subject to personal interpretation. Human error in the sciences does not make science itself subjective, it's simply one of those things we have to work around. It doesn't mean that you're free to interpret the data any which way you choose. Creative thinking is absolutely a must for problem-solving in science, yes, and I'm personally a very right-brained scientist, or at least a student aspiring very much to get a degree in a couple scientific fields, so I'm not saying creativity and science are at odds, quite to the contrary! But just because someone believes that, say, H20 is 19 grams per mole doesn't mean it actually is 19 grams per mole.

There is a real problem that has plagued the sciences for centuries, however. Group consensus builds to the point where science can build up a dogma around a model or a set of ideas, even if those ideas aren't quite right, or even if they're just flat-out wrong. The good news is that, in theory, scientists will be swayed by evidence, and one of the good things about science is that you can go back on your previous ideas, even ideas that you've championed, and you can actually be rewarded and heralded as a very good scientist for the very act of proving yourself wrong, and others would be right for saying so! The bad news is that sometimes dogma in the sciences can be very hard to shake, and scientists themselves are of course all too human. But that doesn't make reality other than what it is, it just means that we should exercise due care and caution when interpreting data and especially when coming to a final conclusion.

I've said this before, I'm not debating that there are objective truths, maybe H20 is 19 moles per gram, the point is that you can't objectively prove that. I depend upon tests and data to come up with that number and data can be interpreted many ways.

[Taikyoku]

frozen_water

Taikyoku

It's not the science itself which is subjective, it's people's views on science which are subject to personal interpretation. Human error in the sciences does not make science itself subjective, it's simply one of those things we have to work around. It doesn't mean that you're free to interpret the data any which way you choose. Creative thinking is absolutely a must for problem-solving in science, yes, and I'm personally a very right-brained scientist, or at least a student aspiring very much to get a degree in a couple scientific fields, so I'm not saying creativity and science are at odds, quite to the contrary! But just because someone believes that, say, H20 is 19 grams per mole doesn't mean it actually is 19 grams per mole.

There is a real problem that has plagued the sciences for centuries, however. Group consensus builds to the point where science can build up a dogma around a model or a set of ideas, even if those ideas aren't quite right, or even if they're just flat-out wrong. The good news is that, in theory, scientists will be swayed by evidence, and one of the good things about science is that you can go back on your previous ideas, even ideas that you've championed, and you can actually be rewarded and heralded as a very good scientist for the very act of proving yourself wrong, and others would be right for saying so! The bad news is that sometimes dogma in the sciences can be very hard to shake, and scientists themselves are of course all too human. But that doesn't make reality other than what it is, it just means that we should exercise due care and caution when interpreting data and especially when coming to a final conclusion.

I've said this before, I'm not debating that there are objective truths, maybe H20 is 19 moles per gram, the point is that you can't objectively prove that. I depend upon tests and data to come up with that number and data can be interpreted many ways.

Pretty much all experimentally-deduced data is approximate, but we do the best we can to get accurate results. One's response to data can be subjective, but that doesn't make truth itself subjective. If you want to get philosophical, Kant argued pretty well that I really can't objectively prove anything except that there is, but that's not exactly practical. We're doing the best we know how to do, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that data can be interpreted many ways.

[frozen_water]

Taikyoku

frozen_water

Taikyoku

It's not the science itself which is subjective, it's people's views on science which are subject to personal interpretation. Human error in the sciences does not make science itself subjective, it's simply one of those things we have to work around. It doesn't mean that you're free to interpret the data any which way you choose. Creative thinking is absolutely a must for problem-solving in science, yes, and I'm personally a very right-brained scientist, or at least a student aspiring very much to get a degree in a couple scientific fields, so I'm not saying creativity and science are at odds, quite to the contrary! But just because someone believes that, say, H20 is 19 grams per mole doesn't mean it actually is 19 grams per mole.

There is a real problem that has plagued the sciences for centuries, however. Group consensus builds to the point where science can build up a dogma around a model or a set of ideas, even if those ideas aren't quite right, or even if they're just flat-out wrong. The good news is that, in theory, scientists will be swayed by evidence, and one of the good things about science is that you can go back on your previous ideas, even ideas that you've championed, and you can actually be rewarded and heralded as a very good scientist for the very act of proving yourself wrong, and others would be right for saying so! The bad news is that sometimes dogma in the sciences can be very hard to shake, and scientists themselves are of course all too human. But that doesn't make reality other than what it is, it just means that we should exercise due care and caution when interpreting data and especially when coming to a final conclusion.

I've said this before, I'm not debating that there are objective truths, maybe H20 is 19 moles per gram, the point is that you can't objectively prove that. I depend upon tests and data to come up with that number and data can be interpreted many ways.

Pretty much all experimentally-deduced data is approximate, but we do the best we can to get accurate results. One's response to data can be subjective, but that doesn't make truth itself subjective. If you want to get philosophical, Kant argued pretty well that I really can't objectively prove anything except that there is, but that's not exactly practical.

Agreed, I'm not trying to debate the existence of objective facts.

Quote:

We're doing the best we know how to do, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that data can be interpreted many ways.

Underdetermination- Scientists choose the best account of data from among competing hypothesis. This choice can never be logically conclusive, because for every explanation there are in principle an indefinitely larger number of others that are exactly empirically equivalent. Theories are underdetermined by the empirical evidence.

(Taken from: An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies; Sergio Sismondo)

[The Willow Of Darkness]

frozen_water

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

No, every object is not subjective, but every object (that was created artificially-not through naturally occurrences) was created subjectively. Every object's form is subjective.

In the same way science as an idea (much as the idea of chair) is not subjective, but science in reality, when it is given form such as through theories or data (the making of a chair) is a subjective product. So while the idea of chair may be objective, any chair I create will by subjective understanding of that idea.

You've got this reversed. All claims about the nature of reality are objective. It is the objective which appears within the subjective, not the subjective which creates the objective.

No, I've got it straight. My claim is my opinion, based on my interpretation.

That's clearly not objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

That view of knowledge is nonsensical. By definition, since everything we know is how we understand, it can never be separated from how we interpret the meaning of reality. To understand what is true, to know that a stove is hot and is harmful when touched, is an understanding someone has of the stove, is an "interpretation" of what the stove means. The subjective is not mutually exclusive with objective. Indeed, as knowledge can only ever occur to subjective experience, it is a requirement, if there is truth to be known, that the objective appear within someone's subjective experience.

We don't have to know something for it to be true. Our understanding of truth is subjective, truth is not. Our perception of what is true is not objective.

Such as dry ice can feel hot, it is not objectively true that dry ice is hot.

You got it somewhat right. There can certainly be things which are true which we don't know, so we don't have have to know something for it to be true, but this does not resolve your error or address the issue I was actually talking about.

My point is that we we are to perceive truth, if we are to know it, then the objective(as truth is by definition objective), is necessary present within subjectivity, as all our knowledge is contained within subjective experience.

False, in terms of "hot," in the sense of how it feels, it is objective it is hot. If you are using "hot" in the sense of what temperature it is, then it is objectively not hot. You are equivocating two different definitions of "hot" and the phenomena they refer to.

We can see the incoherence of your position within your own claim. You claim that dry ice can feel hot. What happens if I disagree? What if I say: "Nah, you are wrong. Dry ice never feels hot." I am wrong. It is objective fact that dry ice can feel hot.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

frozen_water

Taikyoku

frozen_water

Taikyoku

It's not the science itself which is subjective, it's people's views on science which are subject to personal interpretation. Human error in the sciences does not make science itself subjective, it's simply one of those things we have to work around. It doesn't mean that you're free to interpret the data any which way you choose. Creative thinking is absolutely a must for problem-solving in science, yes, and I'm personally a very right-brained scientist, or at least a student aspiring very much to get a degree in a couple scientific fields, so I'm not saying creativity and science are at odds, quite to the contrary! But just because someone believes that, say, H20 is 19 grams per mole doesn't mean it actually is 19 grams per mole.

There is a real problem that has plagued the sciences for centuries, however. Group consensus builds to the point where science can build up a dogma around a model or a set of ideas, even if those ideas aren't quite right, or even if they're just flat-out wrong. The good news is that, in theory, scientists will be swayed by evidence, and one of the good things about science is that you can go back on your previous ideas, even ideas that you've championed, and you can actually be rewarded and heralded as a very good scientist for the very act of proving yourself wrong, and others would be right for saying so! The bad news is that sometimes dogma in the sciences can be very hard to shake, and scientists themselves are of course all too human. But that doesn't make reality other than what it is, it just means that we should exercise due care and caution when interpreting data and especially when coming to a final conclusion.

I've said this before, I'm not debating that there are objective truths, maybe H20 is 19 moles per gram, the point is that you can't objectively prove that. I depend upon tests and data to come up with that number and data can be interpreted many ways.

Pretty much all experimentally-deduced data is approximate, but we do the best we can to get accurate results. One's response to data can be subjective, but that doesn't make truth itself subjective. If you want to get philosophical, Kant argued pretty well that I really can't objectively prove anything except that there is, but that's not exactly practical.

Agreed, I'm not trying to debate the existence of objective facts.

Quote:

We're doing the best we know how to do, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that data can be interpreted many ways.

Underdetermination- Scientists choose the best account of data from among competing hypothesis. This choice can never be logically conclusive, because for every explanation there are in principle an indefinitely larger number of others that are exactly empirically equivalent. Theories are underdetermined by the empirical evidence.

(Taken from: An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies; Sergio Sismondo)

That is pure nonsense. Science works by using the explanation which best fits with the empirical data. There is a reason that we do, for example, propose that a carrots are the cause of volcanic eruption: that is not what the empirical evidence points to. It is a blatant lie to claim that there are always indefinitely larger number of theories which match the empirical evidence.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

frozen_water

Fermionic

frozen_water

I'm well aware of my own standpoint and its implications thank you. How you presume to claim you know such a thing however, is a mystery to me.

Likely as you've not demonstrated it.

frozen_water

My claim is my opinion, based on my interpretation.

That's clearly not objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

This, for instance. You show you are unaware of the nature of claims made as opinions.

This is a discussion, specifically related to science and it's objectivity (or lack there of) and that's what I've been discussing. I've had no reason to outline implications thus far.

Willow then quoted a statement I made with a post that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This hardly demonstrates I don't understand the implications of my own standpoint. Whether or not Objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive depends on the definitions being used, it's apparent that my usage within the given context makes them mutually exclusive.

If you want to make some point on the nature of objectivity and subjectivity go right on ahead, but that's not what I was discussing when our friend decided to quote me.

You most certainly do not understand what you are talking about.

You tried to rely on an objective fact, that dry ice can feel cold, to prove that your understand that your understanding of dry ice was merely "your interpretation." This is a blatant logical incoherence. You cannot escape the problem be claiming that you are using a "different definition." The point here is that your definition is logically incoherent.