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.