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]

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

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

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

Science can be objective. And sometimes science is theoretical.

How is saying that you can't approach every science in the same way show it's not subjective?

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

For instance, if you are a chemist and you have a flask containing an unknown liquid compound and you want to describes it's properties, you don't approach it subjectively. It wouldn't do any good and you wouldn't find anything out. Not only can you approach subjectively, it's the only way possible. When scientist run experiments they collect data, they then have to interpret that data (enter subjectivity) then after recording that data they have to analyze it and decide how that information matches their hypothesis, and what this information means (enter more subjectivity).

Quote:

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

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

There are nuances to every science, they have to decide just what color those ph strips appear, and someone had to decide once upon a time what color meant what. There is no universal guidebook on science, all those rules and procedures were developed by people and their subjective thoughts.

[eiji_panda13]

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

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

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

Science can be objective. And sometimes science is theoretical.

How is saying that you can't approach every science in the same way show it's not subjective?

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

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

Not only can you approach subjectively, it's the only way possible. When scientist run experiments they collect data, they then have to interpret that data (enter subjectivity) then after recording that data they have to analyze it and decide how that information matches their hypothesis, and what this information means (enter more subjectivity).

Quote:

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

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

There are nuances to every science, they have to decide just what color those ph strips appear, and someone had to decide once upon a time what color meant what. There is no universal guidebook on science, all those rules and procedures were developed by people and their subjective thoughts.

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

[frozen_water]

eiji_panda13

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

It shows that it's not objective. Also did you miss the bit about someone had to decide what colors meant what? It's not just lining them up, the entire process had to be created through subjective means.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

marshmallowcreampie

Riviera de la Mancha

The issue is not with the nature of science, nor is accurate to assert that science is subjective.

The nature of science (the scientific method) is not itself problematic; its merely a process of analysis. Abstract processes, unless internally illogical or inconsistent, have no inherent problems. If they have issues, it is with their implimentation.

To say science is subjective is just plain wrong. I can't (without being discredited and barred from my field) make up evidence, nor does my own beliefs about the non/existence of facts, influence science.

What is accurate though is to point out the limits of the scientific method in determining things like the truth. People far too often equate factual assessments with the truth, but that is not the case. Factual determinations as measured by science only result in those things which are quantifiable. Things which cannot be quantified, but are none the less relevant to the assessment of truth, are thus left out.

Equally true is that facts themselves are often meaningless. Scientists, and other 'educated' persons, often ascribe, without realizing it, values to facts based on the circumstances they find themselves in or with the goals they are seeking to achieve. Facts are things; putting on a lab coat and acting as if its conclusions are always entirely self-evident doesn't obfuscate this. Intepretation is needed to give facts a value, and interpretation is always subject to error.

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

That makes no sense.

[eiji_panda13]

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

It shows that it's not objective. Also did you miss the bit about someone had to decide what colors meant what? It's not just lining them up, the entire process had to be created through subjective means.

What aren't you getting? The fact that we use subjectivity to understand color perception doesn't take away any objectivity from light particles and their behavior. It's not our subjectivity that is affecting their existence or behavior, but our subjectivity that is affecting how we perceive them and what it means for us to interact with them. If we didn't exist to perceive light particles, they would have the same objectivity as before.

Please research the trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

frozen_water

Riviera de la Mancha

The issue is not with the nature of science, nor is accurate to assert that science is subjective.

The nature of science (the scientific method) is not itself problematic; its merely a process of analysis. Abstract processes, unless internally illogical or inconsistent, have no inherent problems. If they have issues, it is with their implimentation.

To say science is subjective is just plain wrong. I can't (without being discredited and barred from my field) make up evidence, nor does my own beliefs about the non/existence of facts, influence science.

I didn't say it's an issue that science is subjective, just that people don't view it as such. The process of analysis is where the subjectivity comes in.

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

The process of analysis for the scientific method is not subjective though, for reasons I already explained.

Interpreting has nothing to do with the scientific method itself. It is what is done after the information is gathered, which I already addressed in my post.

[frozen_water]

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

It shows that it's not objective. Also did you miss the bit about someone had to decide what colors meant what? It's not just lining them up, the entire process had to be created through subjective means.

What aren't you getting? The fact that we use subjectivity to understand color perception doesn't take away any objectivity from light particles and their behavior. It's not our subjectivity that is affecting their existence or behavior, but our subjectivity that is affecting how we perceive them and what it means for us to interact with them. If we didn't exist to perceive light particles, they would have the same objectivity as before.

Please research the trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory.

I don't think you follow what I'm saying.

You realize that those process aren't something just always existed right? Someone had to make them. Theories are created based on observations, and those observations can be interpreted different ways. See undetermination.

Also when trying to apply a scientific method you run into the issue that you are judging your results based on the rules that method created. Wittgenstein explained this best: "Rules do not contain the rules for the scope of their own applicability."

Reference for Wittgenstein.

[IronySandwich]

Science is conducted by people, who are by their nature flawed and prone to conformation bias. This is true. However, the scientific method is a method devised for the very purpose of fighting these flaws.

Contrast this with other "ways of knowing" which take those innate flaws and enshrine them as revelation.

To say that scientists make mistakes is obviously true. To attempt to grow that into some sort of equality between science and "other ways of knowing", which amount to nothing more than making something up and declaring it the truth, is not only wrong but is flat out dishonest.

[frozen_water]

Riviera de la Mancha

frozen_water

Riviera de la Mancha

The issue is not with the nature of science, nor is accurate to assert that science is subjective.

The nature of science (the scientific method) is not itself problematic; its merely a process of analysis. Abstract processes, unless internally illogical or inconsistent, have no inherent problems. If they have issues, it is with their implimentation.

To say science is subjective is just plain wrong. I can't (without being discredited and barred from my field) make up evidence, nor does my own beliefs about the non/existence of facts, influence science.

I didn't say it's an issue that science is subjective, just that people don't view it as such. The process of analysis is where the subjectivity comes in.

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

The process of analysis for the scientific method is not subjective though, for reasons I already explained.

Interpreting has nothing to do with the scientific method itself. It is what is done after the information is gathered, which I already addressed in my post.

Interpreting is required when performing science. You can't ignore the fact that it's impossible to perform the scientific method without interpreting on some level, nothing just comes through as straight fact.

Also, gathering the information itself is not some purely objective activity. It's impossible to test anything in isolation.

[frozen_water]

IronySandwich

Science is conducted by people, who are by their nature flawed and prone to conformation bias. This is true. However, the scientific method is a method devised for the very purpose of fighting these flaws.

Contrast this with other "ways of knowing" which take those innate flaws and enshrine them as revelation.

To say that scientists make mistakes is obviously true. To attempt to grow that into some sort of equality between science and "other ways of knowing", which amount to nothing more than making something up and declaring it the truth, is not only wrong but is flat out dishonest.

What exactly do you mean by this? Do you think philosophy just makes things up? What about history?

[eiji_panda13]

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

It shows that it's not objective. Also did you miss the bit about someone had to decide what colors meant what? It's not just lining them up, the entire process had to be created through subjective means.

What aren't you getting? The fact that we use subjectivity to understand color perception doesn't take away any objectivity from light particles and their behavior. It's not our subjectivity that is affecting their existence or behavior, but our subjectivity that is affecting how we perceive them and what it means for us to interact with them. If we didn't exist to perceive light particles, they would have the same objectivity as before.

Please research the trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory.

I don't think you follow what I'm saying.

You realize that those process aren't something just always existed right? Someone had to make them. Theories are created based on observations, and those observations can be interpreted different ways. See undetermination.

Also when trying to apply a scientific method you run into the issue that you are judging your results based on the rules that method created. Wittgenstein explained this best: "Rules do not contain the rules for the scope of their own applicability."

Reference for Wittgenstein.

You are speaking nonsense. Excuse me, but we didn't create these processes. We simply came to understand how they work. They existed and were operating before we even had knowledge of what they were. We didn't invent photoreceptors. We didn't invent light particles. We didn't invent the chemical reactions that occur in our bodies that allow us to perceive color. We simply came to understand how these things work. That's like saying we invented breathing or photosynthesis.

[BlackBeltMan]

frozen_water

Science is the new Religion.

Or so it's been said anyway. People have increasingly turned from their antiquated religions to take up the reigns of science and it's "objective" revelations.

The idea of science seems to be that it accumulates facts and slowly progresses closer to real truth. This idea has it's issues though. To begin with how can we know science is progressing towards "truth" if we don't have any way of defining truth on it's own.
What we see as true is most often defined in terms of what we can observe and measure, AKA science.

The problem is not that Science is bad, I think it's a beautiful subject which helps us find some clarity in our thoughts and beliefs, however people seem to put too much faith in science as some infallible "god" as it were. They view science as the final word, without questioning whether or not the very nature of science prevents it from being objective. It's important to realize that science like any other field is wrought with issues of human subjectivity and error, as it all requires some level of interpretation and analysis.

Science is subjective just like any other field, so society's impassioned elevation of science onto a god-like pedestal is not so far from the nature of any other religion. So yes, I suppose Science is the new religion, I wonder how long it will take for people to become disillusioned with it as well?

People say a lot of weird things, just because someone says something doesn't make it true necessarily. Now I would give them credit if they had plenty of experience but most people don't.

I think we can define truth, you can too, you just close your eyes to that in an attempt to look smart, sorry dear I'm a little harsh.

A group is emerging, I agree, in which people view the scientific method as infallible. Well, haha the method itself IS practically infallible. The problem is humans who are heavily biased LOOKING for their results. That screws everything up. But back to the subject matter; I almost fell into the little hole of worshiping science, but then had to quickly grab myself so i wouldn't fall too deep. It is really comforting actually, the methods used. It is tried over and over and over again, sometimes hundreds of times to make sure the researcher has the correct formulas and ideas. Traditionally it needs to be correct 6 times I think for it to become a theory.

No, science is not subjective, that's what makes it a science. Humans force it, degrade by showing it being subjective, but in truth if used correctly and with no bias, it is the essence of perfection.
Also just so we're clear, science and religion have held hands in several instances, just ask a Jew. Also there are several new religions popping up lately that practically married science, which is a little odd if you ask me but oh well haha.
I couldn't tell if you were bashing science or the people who "worship" it. The people who do worship it actually rarely practice it as they should and are a minority truth be told.

[frozen_water]

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

It shows that it's not objective. Also did you miss the bit about someone had to decide what colors meant what? It's not just lining them up, the entire process had to be created through subjective means.

What aren't you getting? The fact that we use subjectivity to understand color perception doesn't take away any objectivity from light particles and their behavior. It's not our subjectivity that is affecting their existence or behavior, but our subjectivity that is affecting how we perceive them and what it means for us to interact with them. If we didn't exist to perceive light particles, they would have the same objectivity as before.

Please research the trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory.

I don't think you follow what I'm saying.

You realize that those process aren't something just always existed right? Someone had to make them. Theories are created based on observations, and those observations can be interpreted different ways. See undetermination.

Also when trying to apply a scientific method you run into the issue that you are judging your results based on the rules that method created. Wittgenstein explained this best: "Rules do not contain the rules for the scope of their own applicability."

Reference for Wittgenstein.

You are speaking nonsense. Excuse me, but we didn't create these processes. We simply came to understand how they work. They existed and were operating before we even had knowledge of what they were. We didn't invent photoreceptors. We didn't invent light particles. We didn't invent the chemical reactions that occur in our bodies that allow us to perceive color. We simply came to understand how these things work. That's like saying we invented breathing or photosynthesis.

You clearly misunderstood, I'm saying we invented the methods used to test them, not the process itself. (The word process is my previous posts was in reference to the process of testing).

[IronySandwich]

frozen_water

IronySandwich

Science is conducted by people, who are by their nature flawed and prone to conformation bias. This is true. However, the scientific method is a method devised for the very purpose of fighting these flaws.

Contrast this with other "ways of knowing" which take those innate flaws and enshrine them as revelation.

To say that scientists make mistakes is obviously true. To attempt to grow that into some sort of equality between science and "other ways of knowing", which amount to nothing more than making something up and declaring it the truth, is not only wrong but is flat out dishonest.

What exactly do you mean by this? Do you think philosophy just makes things up? What about history?

The former does that exactly, though it at least usually requires that what it makes up conform to a certain level of internal consistency. The later isn't a "way of knowing", it's a collection of things about the past which are known, presumably from some variety of evidence, and so is perfectly amenable to scientific study.

Of course, people who use this argument don't typically mean to put forth philosophy or historical records as the "alternative". They pretty much always are talking about religion or some sort of vague "spiritual" nonsense, both of which are "ways of knowing" which amplify human flaws rather than fight them.

[eiji_panda13]

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

That doesn't make what I said less significant. However, the perception of color isn't purely subjective. Yes, we assigned significant meaning to colors as a subjective observation of the visible light spectrum and its interaction with photoreceptors in the eye.But certain aspects are still based in objectivity

It shows that it's not objective. Also did you miss the bit about someone had to decide what colors meant what? It's not just lining them up, the entire process had to be created through subjective means.

What aren't you getting? The fact that we use subjectivity to understand color perception doesn't take away any objectivity from light particles and their behavior. It's not our subjectivity that is affecting their existence or behavior, but our subjectivity that is affecting how we perceive them and what it means for us to interact with them. If we didn't exist to perceive light particles, they would have the same objectivity as before.

Please research the trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory.

I don't think you follow what I'm saying.

You realize that those process aren't something just always existed right? Someone had to make them. Theories are created based on observations, and those observations can be interpreted different ways. See undetermination.

Also when trying to apply a scientific method you run into the issue that you are judging your results based on the rules that method created. Wittgenstein explained this best: "Rules do not contain the rules for the scope of their own applicability."

Reference for Wittgenstein.

You are speaking nonsense. Excuse me, but we didn't create these processes. We simply came to understand how they work. They existed and were operating before we even had knowledge of what they were. We didn't invent photoreceptors. We didn't invent light particles. We didn't invent the chemical reactions that occur in our bodies that allow us to perceive color. We simply came to understand how these things work. That's like saying we invented breathing or photosynthesis.

You clearly misunderstood, I'm saying we invented the methods used to test them, not the process itself. (The word process is my previous posts was in reference to the process of testing).

Ok. Exactly what are you trying o say because you're confusing me?

It seems to me that you're saying that matter/processes/etc can't be objective if we have to use subjectivity to understand how it works.