Welcome to Gaia! ::

Science is objective?

Of course, Science deals with cold hard facts. 0.48936170212766 48.9% [ 46 ]
No, science is subject to human interpreatation and subjectivity. 0.42553191489362 42.6% [ 40 ]
I don't know. 0.085106382978723 8.5% [ 8 ]
Total Votes:[ 94 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24 25 26 > >>
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
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.
Science does operate off the idea that if something is shown to be correct several times, it is more true than something that hasn't. Science in its current state depends upon induction for it's reasoning, it's a philosophical issue.

Quote:
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.
By the nature of science, I meant the way it is conducted. Evey step in the scientific method requires some level of interpretation on the part of the scientist, therefore science cannot be objective.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
AliKat1988
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.
Why would you assume I don't already do this?
Quote:
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.
Even if colleges view them it doesn't mean their inability to reproduce proves the findings wrong or their ability to reproduce proves them right. The issue is that science is supposed to progress towards truth but there's no way of knowing if it does.
frozen_water
Science does operate off the idea that if something is shown to be correct several times, it is more true than something that hasn't. Science in its current state depends upon induction for it's reasoning, it's a philosophical issue.


Inference of nature from observation is not an issue. Eg. "All observed swans have been white, therefore all swans are white". This isn't problematic for two reasons; one is that no such concusions are made, the other is that the things are contingent upon their definitions.

You are correct in your post from several posts ago; I misunderstood what you were implying by "subjective", in the sense of induction. I'd confused it with mathematical induction, in my stupor. Apologies.
frozen_water
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.
Science does operate off the idea that if something is shown to be correct several times, it is more true than something that hasn't. Science in its current state depends upon induction for it's reasoning, it's a philosophical issue.

Quote:
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.
By the nature of science, I meant the way it is conducted. Evey step in the scientific method requires some level of interpretation on the part of the scientist, therefore science cannot be objective.

You muddle way too many things.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
Riviera de la Mancha
frozen_water
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.
Science does operate off the idea that if something is shown to be correct several times, it is more true than something that hasn't. Science in its current state depends upon induction for it's reasoning, it's a philosophical issue.

Quote:
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.
By the nature of science, I meant the way it is conducted. Evey step in the scientific method requires some level of interpretation on the part of the scientist, therefore science cannot be objective.

You muddle way too many things.
You'll have to elaborate if you want a discussion.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

17,050 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
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.


True, though in the context of something that hasn't been figured out, one could say that it's subjective, but only to a certain extent. Say there's some natural phenomena that we don't yet have an explanation for. Without studying the phenomena, one could say that all hypotheses for the event are equally valid. But once people DO start studying it and understanding how it works, the hypotheses that can be considered valid get narrowed down.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
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.
I didn't say it's an issue that science is subjective, just that people don't view it as such. The process of analysis is where the subjectivity comes in.

And yes, it is subjective, while your results may not be made up they require some level of interpretation and analysis which is dependent upon how you choose to interpret them.
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.

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 is not so far from the nature of any other religion. So yes, I suppose Science is the new religion, I wonder how long it will take for people to become disillusioned with it as well?


Exactly what do you mean by Science? Social Science, Physical Science, all science?

Because their isn't just one type of science. And you can't approach each science in the same fashion. And each category may have subcategories that are approached differently.

I mean, you don't approach biology the same way you do physics. You also can't approach microbiology the way you do macrobiology.

Science can be objective. And sometimes science is theoretical.


But I think that it is just human nature for us to want to put our faith in something. In some cases what we know as scientific truth is just that. It's facts backed up by consistent data and continued research.You can see and touch it, or at least observe and capture it.

For instance, microbes, can't be seen with the naked eye. But we know they exist and are living and nonliving things that we can capture, observe, and manipulate. The discovery of microbes opened our eyes. Before we were ignorantly thinking that sin caused us to get sick. Or other ridiculous philosophies and we thought leeches or purification was the fix to everything. Now that we know about microbes, some people put all their faith into vaccination and immunization and antibiotics.
Raginmund Brigir's avatar

Hygienic Genius

8,500 Points
  • Guildmember 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Partygoer 500
sci·ence, noun, ˈsī-ən(t)s

1.: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

faith, noun, ˈfāth

1 : a system of religious beliefs.
2 : firm belief in something for which there is no proof .


Your argument is invalid.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
eiji_panda13
Exactly what do you mean by Science? Social Science, Physical Science, all science?
Take your pick.

Quote:
Because their isn't just one type of science. And you can't approach each science in the same fashion. And each category may have subcategories that are approached differently.

I mean, you don't approach biology the same way you do physics. You also can't approach microbiology the way you do macrobiology.

Science can be objective. And sometimes science is theoretical.
How is saying that you can't approach every science in the same way show it's not subjective?


Quote:
But I think that it is just human nature for us to want to put our faith in something. In some cases what we know as scientific truth is just that. It's facts backed up by consistent data and continued research.You can see and touch it, or at least observe and capture it.

For instance, microbes, can't be seen with the naked eye. But we know they exist and are living and nonliving things that we can capture, observe, and manipulate. The discovery of microbes opened our eyes. Before we were ignorantly thinking that sin caused us to get sick. Or other ridiculous philosophies and we thought leeches or purification was the fix to everything. Now that we know about microbes, some people put all their faith into vaccination and immunization and antibiotics.
Sure.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
Kozumuda
sci·ence, noun, ˈsī-ən(t)s

1.: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

faith, noun, ˈfāth

1 : a system of religious beliefs.
2 : firm belief in something for which there is no proof .


Your argument is invalid.
I don't think you know what my argument is.
religion decides what is true and ignores all conflicting evidence forever

science assumes that something is true and when conflicting evidence shows up revises its initial assumptions

this is super dumb.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
hahahalolwut
religion decides what is true and ignores all conflicting evidence forever

science assumes that something is true and when conflicting evidence shows up revises its initial assumptions

this is super dumb.
The point is not that science is a religion, it is that science has taken the place of religion.
frozen_water
hahahalolwut
religion decides what is true and ignores all conflicting evidence forever

science assumes that something is true and when conflicting evidence shows up revises its initial assumptions

this is super dumb.
The point is not that science is a religion, it is that science has taken the place of religion.


getting closer and closer to what is true through revising assumptions iteratively has taken the place of looking to what was believed to be true by stone age stoners

i'mokaywiththis.jpeg
frozen_water
Because their isn't just one type of science. And you can't approach each science in the same fashion. And each category may have subcategories that are approached differently.

I mean, you don't approach biology the same way you do physics. You also can't approach microbiology the way you do macrobiology.

Science can be objective. And sometimes science is theoretical.
How is saying that you can't approach every science in the same way show it's not subjective?


What I'm saying is that because of the nature of certain aspects of science, they cannot be approached subjectively and if you tried it wouldn't result in anything.

For instance, if you are a chemist and you have a flask containing an unknown liquid compound and you want to describes it's properties, you don't approach it subjectively. It wouldn't do any good and you wouldn't find anything out.

But you can approach it objectively and run certain tests and experiments. You can find it's pH, which would tell you if it were an acid or base, you could run further test to figure out if it was strong or weak, and you could run even more test to figure out the concentration, and the chemical formula.

On the other hand, if you were a psychiatrist treating a patient, you can't always approach that person and their experience and needs objectively.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games