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 ]

[Suicidesoldier#1]

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.

To your definition, of science. It is generally accepted that science means human study or an objective body of data defining the universe.

But, with the established parameters, it would still be objective.


Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.

If that holds to be true, then I may have said something is blue. This could be perceived as subjective. But if my human definition of blue, was what I perceived of blue, it would be blue, as according to that. This is an objective quantification of a subjective truth.


So, if my parameters established I had to run 10 feet- according to my measurement, which was completing the distance between two pieces of masking tape- does it matter if it was actually 10 feet? Not really, no. According to your definition, "the act of recording and attempting to understand its behavior is science.", not "What [it] does is not science". Therefore, whether or not it was actually 10 feet is irrelevant. Since I, as a human being, moved between these two pieces, with the parameters I defined myself, I am right. Since my action was to record said data, and I did, objectively, within my own parameters, I would be, being objective.

How did I objectively record data? Compared to the universe, I didn't objectively record anything. But compared to science, which I pursue, and is based on me, and compared to my test, to see how fast I could run between those pieces of tape, and repeating the experiment to warrant an average? In your own words, it doesn't apply to the objective universe.


I established a method of recording- me looking at it. I established the parameters of the distance and what they were, and what I arbitrarily defined them as. I established, what the results of the study would define. Within my own parameters, I did in fact objectively achieve them.

My "subjective truth" may have no real value to objective truths. But as you say, this does not matter. Therefore my observations were still within my parameters. Even if my observations were subjective, if subjectivity was a part of the test, it's still objective, basically. xp


Since science is humans trying to define things, as you say, my test could still be objective even if my truths were not.

The results may be tainted compared to the universe but within it's own devices it would be objective.

[Sir Deranged Reindeer]

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

Makes sense, I wonder what, if anything could replace science?

science has been replaced, all science provides is security, just like god does

What has science been replaced by?

I was viewing it as in a succession of beliefs, science being the most current.
Multiple gods -------& Single God --------& Science ---------& ?

Plenty of people in the world still believe in multiple Gods, such as Hindus and Shintoists. Also 'believing' in science is not limited to atheistic people. And science is supposed to be objective. The idea of science is to ask questions, and then seek an answer. While you might have expectations of how an experiment or study will turn out, what you expect is not always what you get. And that's what makes science interesting. As opposed to religion, which starts with answers, then inserts the questions. And if something doesn't happen that they want, it's because god/s willed it, and everyone should still believe due to faith, rather than evidence.

I do think science is getting corrupted in this day and age, mostly due to funding. Governments often don't provide enough funding, so scientists often have to rely on corporate funds - and most of these groups of ulterior motives. Such as a tobacco company sponsoring a study into the effects of smoking. This causes pressure on scientists to produce a certain result, whether or not that is the truth.

...But in terms of the science you read in scientific journals, rather than in mainstream media, I would say that is relatively objective, due to the stringent processes.

[Tuah]

Hm... I thought of a nice, crisp post.

Science is not objective, but only by technicality.

[Sarah Louise Kerrigan]

Suicidesoldier#1

So, if my parameters established I had to run 10 feet- according to my measurement, which was completing the distance between two pieces of masking tape- does it matter if it was actually 10 feet? Not really, no. According to your definition, "the act of recording and attempting to understand its behavior is science.", not "What [it] does is not science". Therefore, whether or not it was actually 10 feet is irrelevant. Since I, as a human being, moved between these two pieces, with the parameters I defined myself, I am right. Since my action was to record said data, and I did, objectively, within my own parameters, I would be, being objective.

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

To your definition, of science. It is generally accepted that science means human study or an objective body of data defining the universe.

It's not "my definition" its a definition. As you should be well aware by now, the English language can have several meanings for the same word. Science, as being discussed here, is the definition I gave. Trying to insert any other definition would be equivocation.

Quote:

But, with the established parameters, it would still be objective.


Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.

If that holds to be true, then I may have said something is blue. This could be perceived as subjective. But if my human definition of blue, was what I perceived of blue, it would be blue, as according to that. This is an objective quantification of a subjective truth.


So, if my parameters established I had to run 10 feet- according to my measurement, which was completing the distance between two pieces of masking tape- does it matter if it was actually 10 feet? Not really, no. According to your definition, "the act of recording and attempting to understand its behavior is science.", not "What [it] does is not science". Therefore, whether or not it was actually 10 feet is irrelevant. Since I, as a human being, moved between these two pieces, with the parameters I defined myself, I am right. Since my action was to record said data, and I did, objectively, within my own parameters, I would be, being objective.

It's clear that you don't understand the term subjective as compared to objective.

Perhaps this will help you out:

Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

Subjective - characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

If I did any interpreting then it's not objective. Also, just because I am consistent with in my own set of rules does not mean I was objective, it just means I was consistent. Nothing more.

Quote:

How did I objectively record data? Compared to the universe, I didn't objectively record anything. But compared to science, which I pursue, and is based on me, and compared to my test, to see how fast I could run between those pieces of tape, and repeating the experiment to warrant an average? In your own words, it doesn't apply to the objective universe.

If something is objectively true it is not relative, it is always true. If something is based on me, and my interpretations it is not objective.

Quote:

I established a method of recording- me looking at it. I established the parameters of the distance and what they were, and what I arbitrarily defined them as. I established, what the results of the study would define. Within my own parameters, I did in fact objectively achieve them.

My "subjective truth" may have no real value to objective truths. But as you say, this does not matter. Therefore my observations were still within my parameters. Even if my observations were subjective, if subjectivity was a part of the test, it's still objective, basically. xp

Since science is humans trying to define things, as you say, my test could still be objective even if my truths were not.

The results may be tainted compared to the universe but within it's own devices it would be objective.

That makes no sense. If there is subjectivity, than it cannot be objective. The two are mutually exclusive. Again, you seem to be confusing consistency with objectivity.

[Ask Jappleack]

Tuah

Hm... I thought of a nice, crisp post.

Science is not objective, but only by technicality.

And then because this wasnt mentioned in the first page this topic will never end lol.

[frozen_water]

Sir Deranged Reindeer

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

frozen_water

Andy Worhal

some guy said that if you get rid of god, you'll have to replace him

Makes sense, I wonder what, if anything could replace science?

science has been replaced, all science provides is security, just like god does

What has science been replaced by?

I was viewing it as in a succession of beliefs, science being the most current.
Multiple gods -------& Single God --------& Science ---------& ?

Plenty of people in the world still believe in multiple Gods, such as Hindus and Shintoists. Also 'believing' in science is not limited to atheistic people. And science is supposed to be objective. The idea of science is to ask questions, and then seek an answer. While you might have expectations of how an experiment or study will turn out, what you expect is not always what you get. And that's what makes science interesting. As opposed to religion, which starts with answers, then inserts the questions. And if something doesn't happen that they want, it's because god/s willed it, and everyone should still believe due to faith, rather than evidence.

I do think science is getting corrupted in this day and age, mostly due to funding. Governments often don't provide enough funding, so scientists often have to rely on corporate funds - and most of these groups of ulterior motives. Such as a tobacco company sponsoring a study into the effects of smoking. This causes pressure on scientists to produce a certain result, whether or not that is the truth.

...But in terms of the science you read in scientific journals, rather than in mainstream media, I would say that is relatively objective, due to the stringent processes.

On the gods comment, the post you quoted was not meant to show the transition of everyone's beliefs, but rather the general trend as societies have progressed.

As to the rest I agree there are distinct differences, the point was not to establish science and religion as equal, but to show similarities and (hopefully) cause those unfamiliar with STS to take a fresh look at science and how it's viewed today.

[frozen_water]

We Are Organisms

Tuah

Hm... I thought of a nice, crisp post.

Science is not objective, but only by technicality.

And then because this wasnt mentioned in the first page this topic will never end lol.

The point of a discussion is not to end, it is to enlighten.

[Ask Jappleack]

frozen_water

We Are Organisms

Tuah

Hm... I thought of a nice, crisp post.

Science is not objective, but only by technicality.

And then because this wasnt mentioned in the first page this topic will never end lol.

The point of a discussion is not to end, it is to enlighten.

So if your post is worded a certain way that causes misunderstandings, rather than addressing those misunderstandings in the first post, its just making you feel smart and wasting everyones time to learn a technicality that could be very easily addressed before hand.

[frozen_water]

We Are Organisms

frozen_water

We Are Organisms

Tuah

Hm... I thought of a nice, crisp post.

Science is not objective, but only by technicality.

And then because this wasnt mentioned in the first page this topic will never end lol.

The point of a discussion is not to end, it is to enlighten.

So if your post is worded a certain way that causes misunderstandings, rather than addressing those misunderstandings in the first post, its just making you feel smart and wasting everyones time to learn a technicality that could be very easily addressed before hand.

No, there is no intentional misleading in the OP. I've even added definitions and additional sources to help clarify. Misunderstandings are virtually unavoidable in complex discussions such as this because everyone brings their own understandings and views.

My comment was not to address anything specific within this thread, it was more a general comment on the nature of conversation, because many people think that the end result is somebody winning, or both parties agreeing, as if there can be only one answer. I'm not so pretentious to claim that there can be only one answer to a question, not even my own, hence the discussion is to serve as a tool to elaborate and help each involved party both understand a different position and better come to know their own.

The idea that just because a phrase you believe to be true is posted so that most people read it would end the discussion is silly.

[Ask Jappleack]

frozen_water

We Are Organisms

frozen_water

We Are Organisms

Tuah

Hm... I thought of a nice, crisp post.

Science is not objective, but only by technicality.

And then because this wasnt mentioned in the first page this topic will never end lol.

The point of a discussion is not to end, it is to enlighten.

So if your post is worded a certain way that causes misunderstandings, rather than addressing those misunderstandings in the first post, its just making you feel smart and wasting everyones time to learn a technicality that could be very easily addressed before hand.

No, there is no intentional misleading in the OP. I've even added definitions and additional sources to help clarify, misunderstanding is just something is almost unavoidable in complex discussions such as this because everyone brings their own understandings and views.

My comment was not to address anything specific within this thread, it was more a general comment on the nature of conversation, because many people think that the end result is somebody winning, or both parties agreeing, as if there can be only one answer. I'm not so pretentious to claim that there can be only one answer to a question, not even my own, hence the discussion is to serve as a tool to elaborate and help each involved party both understand a different position and better come to know their own.

The idea that just because a phrase you believe to be true is posted so that most people read it would end the discussion is silly.

I suppose its more boring for you to bump a thread so eveyrone can read that fact. But I only argued here because I thought it meant scientific evidence is not cold-hard-fact. And people can unwittingly sabotage scientific pursuits, just like someone can unwittingly sabotage a topic. Because lets say, 2 scientific studies point to contradictory evidence, like with circumcision reducing the number of infections. They are contradictory, but there is only one truth. The truth might be a combination of both results shown, such as circumcision might prevent certain types of penal infections and not others. But thats one truth overall. Its the conclusions people misinterpret as being objective is the problem, science does deal with objectiveness, but studies do not immediately find an objective truth. They find evidences leading towards one. So this whole thread is based on misunderstandings, misunderstanding science, subjectivity, or objectivity. If they are misunderstood one simply needs to explain them so that they wont be misunderstood. Rather than HELP, your goal is to help, the action of helping. Not the result helping does. And I never once said you intentionally mislead people, naw I knew you didnt notice you were misleading. You assumed that it was intentional. You see I dont 'help' I get the facts straight, people can ******** help themselves. Its why we have brains, you helping us think towards your result isnt help either. But yeah there is one objective truth, dont spout bullshit that theres more than one question to an answer, especially talking about objectivity. Sure 2+2=1+3 but what everyone wants to hear is a mother ******** 4.

[frozen_water]

We Are Organisms

I suppose its more boring for you to bump a thread so eveyrone can read that fact. But I only argued here because I thought it meant scientific evidence is not cold-hard-fact.

That's not a misunderstanding. That's actually one of my points.

Quote:

And people can unwittingly sabotage scientific pursuits, just like someone can unwittingly sabotage a topic. Because lets say, 2 scientific studies point to contradictory evidence, like with circumcision reducing the number of infections. They are contradictory, but there is only one truth. The truth might be a combination of both results shown, such as circumcision might prevent certain types of penal infections and not others. But thats one truth overall. Its the conclusions people misinterpret as being objective is the problem, science does deal with objectiveness, but studies do not immediately find an objective truth.

While science tries to be objective, it is subjective in its actions. This is actually another point of the OP, not because of any misleading information (intentional or otherwise) but because this is a common view shared by many that I want to show a counter viewpoint on. I think you are confusing the idea of misleading with controversial.

Quote:

They find evidences leading towards one. So this whole thread is based on misunderstandings, misunderstanding science, subjectivity, or objectivity. If they are misunderstood one simply needs to explain them so that they wont be misunderstood.

They have been explained, all of those terms are defined in the OP.

Quote:

Rather than HELP, your goal is to help, the action of helping. Not the result helping does.

Help is all one can hope to do in this situation, I gave clear definitions for each point, and even provided additional information along with my post, there is some level of responsibility on the reader to analyze and respond accordingly. I am not to be held culpable for the understanding of all who post in my thread.

Quote:

And I never once said you intentionally mislead people, naw I knew you didnt notice you were misleading. You assumed that it was intentional.

I didn't assume anything, I never claimed that you were accusing me of such.

Quote:

You see I dont 'help' I get the facts straight, people can ******** help themselves. Its why we have brains, you helping us think towards your result isnt help either.

Sure you do. I help people out all the time, that's what society is, and I can assure that if you are a member of society you get help on a daily basis as well.

The insinuation that because people have the ability to reason for themselves that information and clarifications are not useful is just ridiculous. The subject matter is so weighed down with opinions and multiple interpretations of terms it would be virtually impossible to have any meaningful conversation without some clarification.

Don't act as if my help is done out of some misguided attempt to make everyone believe what I do, it's to help facilitate discussion, which as you may recall is the point of this forum.

Quote:

But yeah there is one objective truth, dont spout bullshit that theres more than one question to an answer, especially talking about objectivity. Sure 2+2=1+3 but what everyone wants to hear is a mother ******** 4.

There is an infinite number of answers to any given question. The existence of objective truth has no bearing on that.

Not to mention that the existence of objective truth (assuming such a thing exists) does not mean we have any way of knowing what the objective truth is. You'd have a hard time proving Kantian ethics better than Utilitarian ones, both are reasonably sound, and both can't be right, yet we can't prove either. This is why we discuss, to weigh the merits of competing theories, because one answer isn't "objectively right".

[frozen_water]

ArkTerra

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.

Out of curiosity, who exactly is being ignorant?

[frozen_water]

Her Excellency

Science may not be objective, but it's far less biased than other things.

I think science tends to less subjective, but I wouldn't agree that it is inherently less subjective.