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]

We Are Organisms

frozen_water

My position is that science requires some level of belief and subjective interpretation like everything else, and that people tend to view it as an objective process that produces objective results, creating an environment in which Scientific fields are viewed as more legitimate (because they deal with facts and truth) than other fields.

They do need interpretation usually to avoid bias from those in the study or those in the articles mentioning those studies otherwise I think science is objective. Like Diamond has a 10 hardness while other stuff is only a 9, diamond is made of carbon carbon has x amounts of electrons nuetrons and protons, diamond is flammable. That stuff is objective generally, but the hardness is more subjective because its not a scale that can compare to itself but that compares to other materials. We could always find something tougher than diamond but we cannot say diamond will turn out to be non-flameable in the presence of oxygen or that it cannot crush chalk. But we can notice that a study in which children drop diamonds on chalk to see if its crushed is not a good study. We cannot suddenly find the carbon inside diamond is actually oxygen or something, it is by fact carbon, although carbon is a subjective term(being a word), carbon itself is not.

Again, I'm speaking to science as the study of things, not as the existence of truths.

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

Nah.

People are just misinterpreting what science is and it's value.

Nah to what exactly?

[Tanaie]

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

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

*Stands by, begins to clap*

I very much agree with this.
I think it's rather foolish to put full faith in science. Science has done wonderfully things for this world, and it has truly expanded our universe. But it isn't perfect, because the people behind it aren't perfect. Biased opinions and beliefs can really affect science, and then be passed off as "truth".

Is the idea of God so much more outrageous then the idea of the big bang theory?
And if we so strongly believe that everything must have a beginning, and an end what is the universe? Is it unendless? But science says everything comes to an end right? And if the universe does have an end, whats at the end? Is the universe in fact in something else? What is that something else in?

It just annoys me how science is given so much more weight then other belief, even if its just theory. For example, dinosaurs. How can they 100% know that dinosaurs evolved into the animals we have today? It's absolutely possibly, but isn't it just as likely that they are in fact separate creatures all of there own?
And Sauropods! The biggest land animal...EVER! These shouldn't even technically exist! Why do they have such small heads for such an enormous body! How could they possibly eat enough food to live! Science can continue to theorize, and study how a sauropod could have possibly lived. But truth be told, they will never be able to find the actual truth. Even if they were to use retro-engineering to make a saurpod, it still wouldn't be the same animal.
This life around us is just so complex, and it can be dangerous to full heartily believe in science. Especially when it is used as a tool to disadvantage certain groups of people.

Science isn't this ultimate thing that can solve anything. Some things we just can never know.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Nah.

People are just misinterpreting what science is and it's value.

Nah to what exactly?

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Nah.

People are just misinterpreting what science is and it's value.

Nah to what exactly?

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

Again, I'm referring to science as the study of how the universe works, study requires interpretation, no?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Nah.

People are just misinterpreting what science is and it's value.

Nah to what exactly?

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

Again, I'm referring to science as the study of how the universe works, study requires interpretation, no?

Raw data in and of itself doesn't have bias, only the perception of that data.

While human perception of science may in fact be invalid, or human belief that science supports their beliefs when it does not, the science itself is not necessarily invalid.


I suppose if you assert that science is study, in that you are equating studying to science, then it could be possible that it's inherently tainted.

But the collection of data, even if wrong, is not necessarily non objective even if the procedure was incorrect. xp

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Nah.

People are just misinterpreting what science is and it's value.

Nah to what exactly?

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

Again, I'm referring to science as the study of how the universe works, study requires interpretation, no?

Raw data in and of itself doesn't have bias, only the perception of that data.

While human perception of science may in fact be invalid, or human belief that science supports their beliefs when it does not, the science itself is not necessarily invalid.


I suppose if you assert that science is study, in that you are equating studying to science, then it could be possible that it's inherently tainted.

But the collection of data, even if wrong, is not necessarily non objective even if the procedure was incorrect. xp

I'm not asserting anything, it's well understood that Science is a study. I'm using science to apply to that understanding specifically as noted in the OP. I'm not discussing any other definition of science, while they do exist.

And what is raw data exactly? If it's anything humans have collected it's not exactly raw.

And I'm not sure I understand that last part, how is it objective if it is both obtained by humans and wrong?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Nah.

People are just misinterpreting what science is and it's value.

Nah to what exactly?

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

Again, I'm referring to science as the study of how the universe works, study requires interpretation, no?

Raw data in and of itself doesn't have bias, only the perception of that data.

While human perception of science may in fact be invalid, or human belief that science supports their beliefs when it does not, the science itself is not necessarily invalid.


I suppose if you assert that science is study, in that you are equating studying to science, then it could be possible that it's inherently tainted.

But the collection of data, even if wrong, is not necessarily non objective even if the procedure was incorrect. xp

I'm not asserting anything, it's well understood that Science is a study. I'm using science to apply to that understanding specifically as noted in the OP. I'm not discussing any other definition of science, while they do exist.

And what is raw data exactly? If it's anything humans have collected it's not exactly raw.

And I'm not sure I understand that last part, how is it objective if it is both obtained by humans and wrong?

If science is merely study than if the study is done correctly than it's objective within itself. xp

So if a study sets certain parameters, and it achieves those parameters, would it not be objective?


But this also assumes that everything humans do is tainted; while humans are prone to being subjective, it's possible that not every conclusion they reach is tainted by subjective reasoning.

A person may feel happy for that conclusion, but it may not be a tainted conclusion.


Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

So science is more or less a systematic enterprise, or a body of knowledge in itself, depending on the usage. Since science depends on the real world it's arguable human tainting of it is irrelevant, as we can compensate for a relative margin of error.


But, my whole point is that, more than anything of that, perception of the data is more important.

People don't necessarily know how to interpret data, which is more of a problem than the data itself. While it's true human might be subjective, the conclusions drawn therefore might be subjective, it doesn't necessarily pose a problem so much as what people incorrectly draw from said data. A lot of people like to think their claims are verified before actually checking to see if they are. If more people focused on what it is they're trying to understand instead of on the perceived results, the world might be better off. xp

[Tuah]

Tanaie

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

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

*Stands by, begins to clap*

I very much agree with this.
I think it's rather foolish to put full faith in science. Science has done wonderfully things for this world, and it has truly expanded our universe. But it isn't perfect, because the people behind it aren't perfect. Biased opinions and beliefs can really affect science, and then be passed off as "truth".

Is the idea of God so much more outrageous then the idea of the big bang theory?
And if we so strongly believe that everything must have a beginning, and an end what is the universe? Is it unendless? But science says everything comes to an end right? And if the universe does have an end, whats at the end? Is the universe in fact in something else? What is that something else in?

It just annoys me how science is given so much more weight then other belief, even if its just theory. For example, dinosaurs. How can they 100% know that dinosaurs evolved into the animals we have today? It's absolutely possibly, but isn't it just as likely that they are in fact separate creatures all of there own?
And Sauropods! The biggest land animal...EVER! These shouldn't even technically exist! Why do they have such small heads for such an enormous body! How could they possibly eat enough food to live! Science can continue to theorize, and study how a sauropod could have possibly lived. But truth be told, they will never be able to find the actual truth. Even if they were to use retro-engineering to make a saurpod, it still wouldn't be the same animal.
This life around us is just so complex, and it can be dangerous to full heartily believe in science. Especially when it is used as a tool to disadvantage certain groups of people.

Science isn't this ultimate thing that can solve anything. Some things we just can never know.

Please understand something about the scientific method before spouting off about it. Scientific consensus makes no assumptions about how the universe began or how or even if it will end. Data has been measured and interpreting it is another step.

You bring up the big bang, so I'll use that as an example. A few facts: It has been shown that light, like any kind of wave, produces the Doppler effect. This information has been used as a tool to determine that galaxies are accelerating away from each other. Trace their paths back and you see they were once all in the same spot. The only assumption here is that the laws of physics don't magically change whenever they feel like it. This is consensus that the entire scientific community has compiled over its existence, and these facts have not yet been debunked. Feel free to try.

Now for some inference: So we have all matter in one spot, which must have had incredible gravity, and would have been something akin to what a black hole is; a singularity. Something had to happen to send everything apart. This is known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang has nothing to do with how the matter got there in the first place, although I think there are some quantum physicists who have more insight into it than we laymen might realize.

Also, I feel the term "bang" is a bit of a misnomer; I interpret it as more of a "warp", but that's already a hard thing to comprehend given that it is based on things that are already incomprehensible to most people.


It's also important to understand what the "edge of the universe" means. Time has been proven to behave subjectively, if I'm using that word correctly; this means the edge of the universe is as far as spacetime has been able to reach - as far as the farthest light has been able to travel during its existence. Imagine it as a single raindrop on a perfectly still pond; the edge of that wave is like the edge of this universe.

There are a lot more questions to be answered, and the whole point of science is to learn, not to make assumptions (IE: "God did it, good enough for me".). Default = void; assume nothing.
Sure, we may never know everything. But that doesn't mean it's alright to make up whatever answer feels nice at the time. As you said, one has to accept not knowing.


Also, evolution has been proven and accepted by consensus of the scientific community. If it could be debunked it would have been. You're welcome to try, by the way. Just know that you're up against people who've dedicated their lives to asking questions and gathering the information to answer them.

In fact, this is the scientific process; debunking inaccurate ideas. Everything submitted, no matter who submits it, goes through an incredibly harsh gauntlet where even the slightest inaccuracy is torn to shreds. Only that which cannot be debunked is accepted. And if new data comes up that discredits it, it is quickly thrown out the window; not held onto like dogma.

(Also, didn't mean this to be so long. Sorry. Usually I'm more concise.)

[TebrasD]

This thread is fun to study to see how ignorant most people are in the ED, and to indeed see the reason why I mostly do not post. Also creationists kudos to you, you made me laugh quite a few times.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Tanaie

Biased opinions and beliefs can really affect science, and then be passed off as "truth".

Yeah, but they usually don't, because there is so much criticality in science, that biased 'opinions' will quickly be shown not to agree with data.

Quote:

Is the idea of God so much more outrageous then the idea of the big bang theory?

Yes, it is. There is lots and lots of evidence for the big bang, and a theoretical model that allows it to predict other phenomena in the universe. For example, we know that if the big bang happened, there would be a large amount of ambient microwave radiation spread throughout the universe. This is called the "cosmic microwave background", and we have observed it. We know that if the big bang happened, the universe would not simply sit in a static position, but would instead be expanding directionally. We have observed this expansion, and also noticed that the rate of expansion is increasing, which means the big bang explains some, but not all, of the spatial qualities of the universe.

Now, let's assume god did it. What can we predict from that? Well, god is omnipotent, so there's no constraints on his behavior, and therefore nothing that can be predicted from this quality. He's omnipresent but also apparently unobservable, so he's everywhere in the universe, but does not interact with the universe in any meaningful way. This brings up problem number one with the god explanation: Either god can be measured, directly or indirectly, or god does not interact with the universe. If god does not interact with the universe, there is no mechanism by which god would have any effect on it. If god somehow has the power to affect the universe without observably interacting with it, then there is no way to ever measure, model, or predict his behavior, so you may as well assume that he doesn't exist, because nothing useful comes out of assuming he does.

Regardless, any explanation for a phenomenon must operate on some physical mechanism, and god would require just as much explanation for the expansion of the universe as not god.

Quote:

And if we so strongly believe that everything must have a beginning, and an end what is the universe? Is it unendless? But science says everything comes to an end right? And if the universe does have an end, whats at the end? Is the universe in fact in something else? What is that something else in?

We don't know, but the interesting thing is, it doesn't really matter, since humans are almost certainly never going to approach anywhere near any edge of the universe. In 10,000 years, the galaxies will be moving away from one another so fast, the light they emit will be blue-shifted out of the visible spectrum.

Quote:

It just annoys me how science is given so much more weight then other belief, even if its just theory. For example, dinosaurs. How can they 100% know that dinosaurs evolved into the animals we have today? It's absolutely possibly, but isn't it just as likely that they are in fact separate creatures all of there own?

No, it's not just as likely. When something happens in the universe, it has effects on other things. These effects are called evidence, and we have lots of evidence that all organisms on Earth are biologically related. Lots of people have tried to falsify evolution, and they've all failed. Each failed attempt to falsify a theory can be considered equivalent to increasing the likelihood that it's correct. If 1000 experiments were carried out, 500 of which said that dinosaurs and current land animals are part of a common lineage, and 500 of which said that dinosaurs and current land animals were somehow disjoint sets, then it would be "equally likely" that they are "separate creatures". However, that's not the case, and the more you study biology, the more you will see that dinosaurs and animals being 'separate creatures' is so untrue it's silly.

Quote:

And Sauropods! The biggest land animal...EVER! These shouldn't even technically exist! Why do they have such small heads for such an enormous body! How could they possibly eat enough food to live!

Well, biological systems in general obey power scaling laws. In other words, the bigger an organism is, generally, the more efficient it is at using energy. Larger creatures can absorb more energy from the same amount of food intake due to their longer digestive tracts, and the characteristics of vascular (blood) and respiratory (air) systems. They have small heads because they have really long necks, which means that the bigger its head, the bigger its heart would have to be in order to provide enough blood pressure to effectively oxygenate its brain. It is able to eat enough food to live because it's herbivorous and, as previously mentioned, has a very efficient digestive system. This means it can consume lots of low-quality food and get plenty of energy from it. Also remember that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, and cold-blooded creatures always use less energy than warm-blooded ones.

[Sir Fharlanghn]

The only real difference between the two is their credibility.

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

Again, I'm referring to science as the study of how the universe works, study requires interpretation, no?

Raw data in and of itself doesn't have bias, only the perception of that data.

While human perception of science may in fact be invalid, or human belief that science supports their beliefs when it does not, the science itself is not necessarily invalid.


I suppose if you assert that science is study, in that you are equating studying to science, then it could be possible that it's inherently tainted.

But the collection of data, even if wrong, is not necessarily non objective even if the procedure was incorrect. xp

I'm not asserting anything, it's well understood that Science is a study. I'm using science to apply to that understanding specifically as noted in the OP. I'm not discussing any other definition of science, while they do exist.

And what is raw data exactly? If it's anything humans have collected it's not exactly raw.

And I'm not sure I understand that last part, how is it objective if it is both obtained by humans and wrong?

If science is merely study than if the study is done correctly than it's objective within itself. xp

So if a study sets certain parameters, and it achieves those parameters, would it not be objective?


But this also assumes that everything humans do is tainted; while humans are prone to being subjective, it's possible that not every conclusion they reach is tainted by subjective reasoning.

A person may feel happy for that conclusion, but it may not be a tainted conclusion.


Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

So science is more or less a systematic enterprise, or a body of knowledge in itself, depending on the usage. Since science depends on the real world it's arguable human tainting of it is irrelevant, as we can compensate for a relative margin of error.


But, my whole point is that, more than anything of that, perception of the data is more important.

People don't necessarily know how to interpret data, which is more of a problem than the data itself. While it's true human might be subjective, the conclusions drawn therefore might be subjective, it doesn't necessarily pose a problem so much as what people incorrectly draw from said data. A lot of people like to think their claims are verified before actually checking to see if they are. If more people focused on what it is they're trying to understand instead of on the perceived results, the world might be better off. xp

Compensating through a margin of error does not remove subjective, as all of the knowledge was obtained subjectively, then interpreted subjectively, and then implemented subjectively.

And how can a human reach a conclusion in a non-subjective way?

I don't think you understand the term subjective as compared to objective.

If it is the result of any level of human interpretation, it is subjectivity. This is not to say that subjective things cannot also be true, but subjective things by their nature cannot be objective. They are mutually exclusive. (At least as defined for these purposes).

[Suicidesoldier#1]

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Science itself is objective, but people's interpretation of science isn't always correct. xp

Again, I'm referring to science as the study of how the universe works, study requires interpretation, no?

Raw data in and of itself doesn't have bias, only the perception of that data.

While human perception of science may in fact be invalid, or human belief that science supports their beliefs when it does not, the science itself is not necessarily invalid.


I suppose if you assert that science is study, in that you are equating studying to science, then it could be possible that it's inherently tainted.

But the collection of data, even if wrong, is not necessarily non objective even if the procedure was incorrect. xp

I'm not asserting anything, it's well understood that Science is a study. I'm using science to apply to that understanding specifically as noted in the OP. I'm not discussing any other definition of science, while they do exist.

And what is raw data exactly? If it's anything humans have collected it's not exactly raw.

And I'm not sure I understand that last part, how is it objective if it is both obtained by humans and wrong?

If science is merely study than if the study is done correctly than it's objective within itself. xp

So if a study sets certain parameters, and it achieves those parameters, would it not be objective?


But this also assumes that everything humans do is tainted; while humans are prone to being subjective, it's possible that not every conclusion they reach is tainted by subjective reasoning.

A person may feel happy for that conclusion, but it may not be a tainted conclusion.


Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

So science is more or less a systematic enterprise, or a body of knowledge in itself, depending on the usage. Since science depends on the real world it's arguable human tainting of it is irrelevant, as we can compensate for a relative margin of error.


But, my whole point is that, more than anything of that, perception of the data is more important.

People don't necessarily know how to interpret data, which is more of a problem than the data itself. While it's true human might be subjective, the conclusions drawn therefore might be subjective, it doesn't necessarily pose a problem so much as what people incorrectly draw from said data. A lot of people like to think their claims are verified before actually checking to see if they are. If more people focused on what it is they're trying to understand instead of on the perceived results, the world might be better off. xp

Compensating through a margin of error does not remove subjective, as all of the knowledge was obtained subjectively, then interpreted subjectively, and then implemented subjectively.

And how can a human reach a conclusion in a non-subjective way?

I don't think you understand the term subjective as compared to objective.

If it is the result of any level of human interpretation, it is subjectivity. This is not to say that subjective things cannot also be true, but subjective things by their nature cannot be objective. They are mutually exclusive. (At least as defined for these purposes).

Humans do not necessarily have inherent subjectivity.

For instance, a thermometer will produce a result directly based on temperature due to the expansion of mercury, simply due to the laws of physics.


A human can in no way tamper with this.

Now a human may have incorrectly tampered with the labeling, interpret this as "hot" or "cold", relative to themselves, or even have introduced bias warming or cooling by accident dependent on geography or measurement using a source that warmed it up (which is way 0 degrees kelvin would be impossible to measure) but that does not mean the data they recovered, the expansion of the mercury, was necessarily wrong, or subjective.


As well, even if humans are subjective if we're talking about say, a study, within that study the information may have been objective. For instance, we may be measuring temperatures; why measure temperatures at all? A desire to do anything, let alone measure temperatures, is already subjective.

But the objectivity within the established parameters of the human scientific study, if we are only going to refer to science as a study, means that if we objectively record specific repeatable criteria, according to an objective format, it was still objective even if the reasoning or even the entire experiment was subjective.


So for instance, my experiment could have been about the reactions people have to eating donuts. This whole thing would be crazy subjective. But if my established parameters were met, which were say, record people's reactions, say with an imperfect camera created by human hands, within the test's parameters I would have full-filled those goals absolutely.

So if you determine science to merely by the study, observation, and categorization, by humans, of random observable data, than we would have met our criteria to the T. That being said, the development of the test may have been subjective; but this is irrelevant to the objectivity of the test or study itself.


In any case, my concern is with people's perceptions.

Sometimes they like to believe data exists simply because it would support their beliefs, which is subjective. But if science in that context is a body of knowledge, absolute in it's constraints to the universe regardless of human intervention, than humans can have no impact on it. If it's a study of random criteria, and we determine science to by the human body of knowledge, even if this knowledge was derived subjectivity, because we are now ignoring science, as per the definition, applying to the universe, it has no base line but itself. Therefore within it's own parameters it would be objective. xp


The human body of knowledge, being "science", compared to a body of concrete knowledge existing within the universe (such as the laws of physics) being science, would be subjective.

But if we are ignoring the constraint of the actual universe for determining value of science since science in this format only means what information humans have gathered? Without the first established baseline of the universe being science, it can still be objective within it's own self defined parameters; these parameters may be subjective, but meeting them objectively would not.


Long story short, sanity is a one trick pony. I mean that's all you get, right?

But when you're insane, the skies the limit! Nothing is beyond your grasp; well, at least as far as you would know.

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

Humans do not necessarily have inherent subjectivity.

For instance, a thermometer will produce a result directly based on temperature due to the expansion of mercury, simply due to the laws of physics.


A human can in no way tamper with this.

Now a human may have incorrectly tampered with the labeling, interpret this as "hot" or "cold", relative to themselves, or even have introduced bias warming or cooling by accident dependent on geography or measurement using a source that warmed it up (which is way 0 degrees kelvin would be impossible to measure) but that does not mean the data they recovered, the expansion of the mercury, was necessarily wrong, or subjective.

What the mercury does is not science, the act of recording and attempting to understand its behavior is science. So no, the mercury expanding is not subjective, but that has no bearing on the fact that recording and interpreting the action is.

Quote:

As well, even if humans are subjective if we're talking about say, a study, within that study the information may have been objective. For instance, we may be measuring temperatures; why measure temperatures at all? A desire to do anything, let alone measure temperatures, is already subjective.

But the objectivity within the established parameters of the human scientific study, if we are only going to refer to science as a study, means that if we objectively record specific repeatable criteria, according to an objective format, it was still objective even if the reasoning or even the entire experiment was subjective.

How does one objectively record something?

Quote:

So for instance, my experiment could have been about the reactions people have to eating donuts. This whole thing would be crazy subjective. But if my established parameters were met, which were say, record people's reactions, say with an imperfect camera created by human hands, within the test's parameters I would have full-filled those goals absolutely.

So if you determine science to merely by the study, observation, and categorization, by humans, of random observable data, than we would have met our criteria to the T. That being said, the development of the test may have been subjective; but this is irrelevant to the objectivity of the test or study itself.

You made some very illogical leaps. If all of my methods of recording information are subjective, and then on top of that the information such as "how humans react" is inherently subjective, that does not magically transfer over into an objective study. Just because something may be consistent, does not in any way make it objective.

Quote:

In any case, my concern is with people's perceptions.

Sometimes they like to believe data exists simply because it would support their beliefs, which is subjective. But if science in that context is a body of knowledge, absolute in it's constraints to the universe regardless of human intervention, than humans can have no impact on it.

The existence of objective truths is irrelevant to the objectivity of science.

If you are assuming science is responsible for producing objective truths, then you'll have to show through entirely subjective means I arrive at an objective result.