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 ]

[Exoth XIII]

Suicidesoldier#1

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

Granted.

Quote:

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.

Except you can't know with 100% certainty that it IS blue, maybe you're vision is off. It might look blue to you, but red to someone else. More, the object might not even exist. Maybe it's a hallucination. Because you can't step outside your own perception to confirm your hypothesis, it remains subjective.

Quote:

Since my action was to record said data, and I did, objectively, within my own parameters, I would be, being objective.

It's entirely subjective. Indeed, movement is a terrible example for objectivity, because movement can be viewed relative to anything. To whit, relative to yourself, you stayed in exactly the same spot. The universe moved 10 feet, allowing you to get from one spot to the next.

For the record, any statement founded on a subjective premise is likewise subjective. If you include subjectivity in your parameters, the result you get will always be subjective.

[frozen_water]

Exoth XIII

For the record, any statement founded on a subjective premise is likewise subjective. If you include subjectivity in your parameters, the result you get will always be subjective.

This a thousand times over.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Exoth XIII

Suicidesoldier#1

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

Granted.

Quote:

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.

Except you can't know with 100% certainty that it IS blue, maybe you're vision is off. It might look blue to you, but red to someone else. More, the object might not even exist. Maybe it's a hallucination. Because you can't step outside your own perception to confirm your hypothesis, it remains subjective.

Quote:

Since my action was to record said data, and I did, objectively, within my own parameters, I would be, being objective.

It's entirely subjective. Indeed, movement is a terrible example for objectivity, because movement can be viewed relative to anything. To whit, relative to yourself, you stayed in exactly the same spot. The universe moved 10 feet, allowing you to get from one spot to the next.

For the record, any statement founded on a subjective premise is likewise subjective. If you include subjectivity in your parameters, the result you get will always be subjective.

Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.


Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.


Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.


But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.


Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.


Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.


Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.


But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.


Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.

Equivocation, equivocation everywhere.

Science as an activity requires more than just one person, so any use of the term objective in which the definition allows objectivity within the parameters of a single person is out.

Objectivity requires that the information not be dependent upon interpretation, so anything which requires people to interpret information is out.

Science requires multiple people>people have to interpret information within science>Science is subjective.

Hence science is not objective, as it both requires multiple people and interpretation of information.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.


Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.


Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.


But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.


Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.

Equivocation, equivocation everywhere.

Science as an activity requires more than just one person, so any use of the term objective in which the definition allows objectivity within the parameters of a single person is out.

Objectivity requires that the information not be dependent upon interpretation, so anything which requires people to interpret information is out.

Science requires multiple people>people have to interpret information within science>Science is subjective.

Hence science is not objective, as it both requires multiple people and interpretation of information.

But within it's own parameters it can be objective. xp

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.


Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.


Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.


But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.


Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.

Equivocation, equivocation everywhere.

Science as an activity requires more than just one person, so any use of the term objective in which the definition allows objectivity within the parameters of a single person is out.

Objectivity requires that the information not be dependent upon interpretation, so anything which requires people to interpret information is out.

Science requires multiple people>people have to interpret information within science>Science is subjective.

Hence science is not objective, as it both requires multiple people and interpretation of information.

But within it's own parameters it can be objective. xp

You cannot put it in it's own parameters and still be addressing the subject appropriately.

If you are not following the definition of objectivity as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" then you are equivocating.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.


Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.


Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.


But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.


Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.

Equivocation, equivocation everywhere.

Science as an activity requires more than just one person, so any use of the term objective in which the definition allows objectivity within the parameters of a single person is out.

Objectivity requires that the information not be dependent upon interpretation, so anything which requires people to interpret information is out.

Science requires multiple people>people have to interpret information within science>Science is subjective.

Hence science is not objective, as it both requires multiple people and interpretation of information.

But within it's own parameters it can be objective. xp

You cannot put it in it's own parameters and still be addressing the subject appropriately.

If you are not following the definition of objectivity as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" then you are equivocating.

Objective to a given parameter.

So if you follow an experiment procedure correctly, then you objectively achieved your goal. Whether or not the experiment at all, or whether or not your conclusion, is subjective, is irrelevant. Therefore science is, as you try to say, the study of given perceptions, objective.

If the facts of a given situation are subjective, that does not mean they cannot be objectively defined.


For instance, it could be an objective fact that I subjectively think something is blue.

So, science can still be objective even if compared to the real world it's just a collection of subjective interpretations.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Science is the reason why you can connect to the internet to rant about how science sucks in the first place.

[frozen_water]

God Emperor Akhenaton

Science is the reason why you can connect to the internet to rant about how science sucks in the first place.

Who said science sucks?

[frozen_water]

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

frozen_water

Suicidesoldier#1

Except that if the definition science is excluding the real world as a parameter, than internally it is objective.

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.


Since science in this definition is the human study, science is objective when compared to human studies.

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.


Objectivity is not necessarily what is true. If I am happy about something, my happiness is not necessarily objective in that not everyone will feel happy. But according to my definition, what is being happy, and me achieving this, I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.


But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.


Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

But, if science *is* him measuring that gravitational measure, science being "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe", then, his measurement would become science. Hence compared to that, science would be objectively correct to science so long as a human met the parameters of whatever the study concluded, right or wrong. Using the universe as your baseline, science, that is per the definition of human studies, is subjective. But using humans as your baseline, science is now objective. Even if the result was derived in a subjective manner, it is still an objective result. Even if tainted, the result exists, and compared to the same source, it is now objectively correct.

Equivocation, equivocation everywhere.

Science as an activity requires more than just one person, so any use of the term objective in which the definition allows objectivity within the parameters of a single person is out.

Objectivity requires that the information not be dependent upon interpretation, so anything which requires people to interpret information is out.

Science requires multiple people>people have to interpret information within science>Science is subjective.

Hence science is not objective, as it both requires multiple people and interpretation of information.

But within it's own parameters it can be objective. xp

You cannot put it in it's own parameters and still be addressing the subject appropriately.

If you are not following the definition of objectivity as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" then you are equivocating.

Objective to a given parameter.

So if you follow an experiment procedure correctly, then you objectively achieved your goal. Whether or not the experiment at all, or whether or not your conclusion, is subjective, is irrelevant. Therefore science is, as you try to say, the study of given perceptions, objective.

If the facts of a given situation are subjective, that does not mean they cannot be objectively defined.


For instance, it could be an objective fact that I subjectively think something is blue.

So, science can still be objective even if compared to the real world it's just a collection of subjective interpretations.

Whether or not something can be objectively subjective is a moot point and irrelevant to the topic.

[Exoth XIII]

Suicidesoldier#1

internally it is objective.

That's exactly what objective doesn't mean. In order to be objective, it needs to be true both internally AND externally, which is exactly why we, as a species, can't be objective; we can't observe externally to our own perception.

Quote:

While compared to the universe, what I'm seeing might not be blue, compared to what I'm seeing, it is blue.

Then it's blue, subjectively. You're the subject, you see it as blue.

Quote:

Compared to the universe, it's not factual, and therefore is not objective, but if we're excluding the universe in our definition of science, defining it merely as what humans have observed, than if you are correct within this parameter of science, you are objectively correct.

Except by excluding the true nature of the universe itself, you exclude objectivity by definition. It is not objective, but subject to human perception. It is subjective.

Quote:

Objectivity is not necessarily what is true.

It could also be what is not true. Either way, it deals with the universe as a whole, not a defined perspective of the universe.

Quote:

I would objectively according to this definition, be happy.

No, but for a different reason. Happiness itself is subjective. No two people consider happiness to be exactly the same thing.

Quote:

I may think something is blue; it may not even exist. According to the universe, my subjective experience would not be absolute.

It cannot be absolute, which is why it can't be objective.

Quote:

But the definition of science proposed is a body of knowledge that humans have derived.

Eh, even the word "knowledge" doesn't really work here.
Science itself is a method of testing possible explanations for observations.
The entire body of 'knowledge' science has brought us rests on the premise that the universe exists as we perceive it.
Don't get me wrong, I make this assumption myself, but understand, because it hinges on a subjective premise, the whole thing is subjective.

Quote:

Humans being imperfect, science is not objective to the universe. But within, can my actions be objectively correct within the parameters defined? Yes, they can.

No, because adding subjective parameters makes it correct, but subjectively.

Quote:

Objective, to what? Objectivity could be compared to another universe; a hypothetical universe. In that universe, gravity may be half of what it is here, for any body of mass. Since a human trying to record that information, the gravitational pull, could never be 100% perfect, he'd be tainted by subjectivity.

Objectivity pertains only to reality. Perhaps in reality, our universe has 1/2 gravity, and our perception is off. It is not accuracy, that makes us subjective; it is the fact that we can't be certain if what we are measuring is even real in the first place.

[frozen_water]

It seems most people who disagree with the OP get the impression that I'm declaiming science or otherwise looking down upon it, I wonder why that is.

Do they not read the full OP, or is it more of a selective interpretation, I wonder.