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]

BlackBeltMan

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.

As I went over early, this runs into the problem of induction, just because something has traditionally been true doesn't mean it can be accepted as fact.

Quote:

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.

I take issue with that bolded bit. Why should I believe that science is any different from other fields? Science was created by humans in an attempt to better understand our physical surroundings, just like history was created to try and understand our past.

Quote:

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.

Neither, and I don't think the term "bashing" applies in any sense. I'm making the point that science is subjective, and that's it.

[Heimdalr]

I get the feeling you're not being objective. Should I disregard what you say, and substitute it with my own opinion? It would certainly appeal to me better.

It's called wishful thinking. Scientists see this all the time when they confuse cause and effect in correlative hypotheses. Thankfully, this end has peer review. The holy books are not peer reviewed, they're reviewed by kings and regents throughout more than a thousand years.

[frozen_water]

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.

I don't think you know anything about philosophy. It's not just making things up, to be considered a legitimate philosophical theory something must adhere to rules of logic, you can't just pull things out of your a**.

[frozen_water]

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

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.

To some extent yes. I'm saying that science can't be objective if it depends upon subjective data. (The data being subjective because the processes used to obtain it are created and the way the data is interpreted is also up for interpretation.)

[frozen_water]

Heimdalr

I get the feeling you're not being objective. Should I disregard what you say, and substitute it with my own opinion? It would certainly appeal to me better.

It's called wishful thinking. Scientists see this all the time when they confuse cause and effect in correlative hypotheses. Thankfully, this end has peer review. The holy books are not peer reviewed, they're reviewed by kings and regents throughout more than a thousand years.

Science is peer reviewed by people who tend to have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Obviously scientist try to be objective, but do you honestly think they can remove all bias? And what about the ones hired by big corporations?

EDIT: Also, I 'm not saying we should reject science because it's subjective, just recognize it for what it is instead of viewing it as infallible.

[BlackBeltMan]

frozen_water

BlackBeltMan

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.

As I went over early, this runs into the problem of induction, just because something has traditionally been true doesn't mean it can be accepted as fact.

Quote:

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.

I take issue with that bolded bit. Why should I believe that science is any different from other fields? Science was created by humans in an attempt to better understand our physical surroundings, just like history was created to try and understand our past.

Quote:

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.

Neither, and I don't think the term "bashing" applies in any sense. I'm making the point that science is subjective, and that's it.

And science refutes all of the traditional folklore. The other thing about true science is that it changes, and frequently, with new and emerging knowledge. I think you misunderstood the little bit I threw in about the "Traditionally it needs to be correct 6 times" thing, you didn't read the part where it says "to become a theory". The testing done is rigorous and that is why it is a science, because I can easily say 'that stone over there looks like a geode' and when we scientifically test it it'll be some iron or something.

Science, true, was created by humans. But it was perfected over centuries, by the most bright and educated people of their era and was tested relentlessly so that anyone could use it. I think you're thinking it was just thought up in some short amount of time.

mmmkay, and I'm refuting of how science is subjective. of course maybe a quick definition of what you mean by science. Are we talking the scientific method, everything encompassing science, certain aspects of science or...? I chose the term bashing because it seemed that was your tone.

[eiji_panda13]

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

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.

To some extent yes. I'm saying that science can't be objective if it depends upon subjective data. (The data being subjective because the processes used to obtain it are created and the way the data is interpreted is also up for interpretation.)

To me, science is objective, even though we use subjectivity to give it meaning and understand it.
And here is why I think this way.

HCl is classified as an acid by our standards. However, the property that HCl embodies that makes it an acid would still exist even if we had not given it significant meaning (the property is objective, because it remains constant despite our subjective perception of it). For instance, if you poured the contents of an unmarked bottle onto human flesh and the bottle contained HCl, you would get the same reaction as you would had you poured the contents of a labeled bottle containing the same concentration of HCl. The fact that we gave significant meaning to the way in which HCl interactions with flesh is subjective, but the interaction itself is objective. However, our manipulation of the HCl concentration is purely subjective. And even though we are manipulating the concentration, we are not physically manipulating the characteristics of the particles in HCl. We simply affected the intensity, we didn't change the nature of what the particles do naturally.

[GunsmithKitten]

If you're injured and need medical attention, would you rather have a priest praying over you, or an EMT trying to stop the bleeding with the medical science he learned?

If the latter, why? After all, the EMT is relying on faith too, isn't he?

[frozen_water]

BlackBeltMan

And science refutes all of the traditional folklore. The other thing about true science is that it changes, and frequently, with new and emerging knowledge. I think you misunderstood the little bit I threw in about the "Traditionally it needs to be correct 6 times" thing, you didn't read the part where it says "to become a theory". The testing done is rigorous and that is why it is a science, because I can easily say 'that stone over there looks like a geode' and when we scientifically test it it'll be some iron or something.

And what if I get a false positive on the results? What if when I go to sample I get some of the dirt and the results are skewed? The person doing the testing has to decide whether to accept or reject the results, how to classify the information. And in the end once all the data is collected, we have to decide what it means. If my hypothesis is that due to volcanic activity iron rich deposits are present in the area as a scientist I then take that information and decide what it means relative to my theory. If all my samples contain iron does this prove it? How do I know a child hasn't just been placing rocks around the area he collected at summer camp?

Quote:

Science, true, was created by humans. But it was perfected over centuries, by the most bright and educated people of their era and was tested relentlessly so that anyone could use it. I think you're thinking it was just thought up in some short amount of time.

Science really isn't all that old, and it's history shows it to be less than objective. Most leading theories couldn't be reproduced, the numbers didn't pan out. Copernican theory? Numbers waaay off. In fact the Ptolemaic model worked better as far as numbers are concerned, objectively speaking shouldn't people have given up on Copernican theory?

Quote:

mmmkay, and I'm refuting of how science is subjective. of course maybe a quick definition of what you mean by science. Are we talking the scientific method, everything encompassing science, certain aspects of science or...? I chose the term bashing because it seemed that was your tone.

Science as a field of study.

[frozen_water]

GunsmithKitten

If you're injured and need medical attention, would you rather have a priest praying over you, or an EMT trying to stop the bleeding with the medical science he learned?

If the latter, why? After all, the EMT is relying on faith too, isn't he?

You missed the point. I'm not saying science is bad, I'm saying that it is subjective and should be recognized as such. Not that it can't prove useful, and in certain situations it's obviously more helpful than others, but that it shouldn't be placed on some pedestal separate from everything else.

[GunsmithKitten]

frozen_water

GunsmithKitten

If you're injured and need medical attention, would you rather have a priest praying over you, or an EMT trying to stop the bleeding with the medical science he learned?

If the latter, why? After all, the EMT is relying on faith too, isn't he?

You missed the point. I'm not saying science is bad, I'm saying that it is subjective and should be recognized as such. Not that it can't prove useful, and in certain situations it's obviously more helpful than others, but that it shouldn't be placed on some pedestal separate from everything else.

Still, why wouldn't you ask for the priest? The EMT is using a subjective form of handling the problem, after all. It's not unique from the priest praying for your injuries to heal. So what's the difference?

[frozen_water]

eiji_panda13

To me, science is objective, even though we use subjectivity to give it meaning and understand it.
And here is why I think this way.

HCl is classified as an acid by our standards. However, the property that HCl embodies that makes it an acid would still exist even if we had not given it significant meaning (the property is objective, because it remains constant despite our subjective perception of it). For instance, if you poured the contents of an unmarked bottle onto human flesh and the bottle contained HCl, you would get the same reaction as you would had you poured the contents of a labeled bottle containing the same concentration of HCl. The fact that we gave significant meaning to the way in which HCl interactions with flesh is subjective, but the interaction itself is objective. However, our manipulation of the HCl concentration is purely subjective. And even though we are manipulating the concentration, we are not physically manipulating the characteristics of the particles in HCl. We simply affected the intensity, we didn't change the nature of what the particles do naturally.

Science isn't what makes things happen, it's a field of study devoted to trying to understand why things happen. I'm not going to argue whether or not there are objective truths, that's a separate issue all together, but I am saying science can't prove objective truths. Science relies upon subjective means, so any information it comes up with is subjective, so in the end we still have to rely upon someone's personal interpretation (or a series of people's personal interpretations) of what the correct answer is.

[frozen_water]

GunsmithKitten

frozen_water

GunsmithKitten

If you're injured and need medical attention, would you rather have a priest praying over you, or an EMT trying to stop the bleeding with the medical science he learned?

If the latter, why? After all, the EMT is relying on faith too, isn't he?

You missed the point. I'm not saying science is bad, I'm saying that it is subjective and should be recognized as such. Not that it can't prove useful, and in certain situations it's obviously more helpful than others, but that it shouldn't be placed on some pedestal separate from everything else.

Still, why wouldn't you ask for the priest? The EMT is using a subjective form of handling the problem, after all. It's not unique from the priest praying for your injuries to heal. So what's the difference?

Because when it comes to health I'd like someone trained specifically on health. When I need some spiritual guidance then I'll call the priest.

[BlackBeltMan]

frozen_water

And what if I get a false positive on the results? What if when I go to sample I get some of the dirt and the results are skewed? The person doing the testing has to decide whether to accept or reject the results, how to classify the information. And in the end once all the data is collected, we have to decide what it means. If my hypothesis is that due to volcanic activity iron rich deposits are present in the area as a scientist I then take that information and decide what it means relative to my theory. If all my samples contain iron does this prove it? How do I know a child hasn't just been placing rocks around the area he collected at summer camp?

The earth thing was just an example, I know very little or could care even less about rocks. True, but then you're forgetting that his theory must then be proven by other scientists using the exact same techniques and methods the original scientists used, and if even oen or two prove him wrong then he's immediately discredited. Science is not taken lightly by professionals, if you try to provide evidence to a committee and you messed one little thing up your career is virtually over. You can try to redeem yourself but very few people listen after that.

Quote:

Science really isn't all that old, and it's history shows it to be less than objective. Most leading theories couldn't be reproduced, the numbers didn't pan out. Copernican theory? Numbers waaay off. In fact the Ptolemaic model worked better as far as numbers are concerned, objectively speaking shouldn't people have given up on Copernican theory?

Science has been practiced in the western culture for hundreds of years. In the Middle East and East even longer. As I was saying before it takes time to perfect a model, I never said the early models were perfect, let alone good. The current model we use is pretty amazing.

Quote:

Science as a field of study.

mmkay, so now I understand things a little bit better.

[eiji_panda13]

frozen_water

eiji_panda13

To me, science is objective, even though we use subjectivity to give it meaning and understand it.
And here is why I think this way.

HCl is classified as an acid by our standards. However, the property that HCl embodies that makes it an acid would still exist even if we had not given it significant meaning (the property is objective, because it remains constant despite our subjective perception of it). For instance, if you poured the contents of an unmarked bottle onto human flesh and the bottle contained HCl, you would get the same reaction as you would had you poured the contents of a labeled bottle containing the same concentration of HCl. The fact that we gave significant meaning to the way in which HCl interactions with flesh is subjective, but the interaction itself is objective. However, our manipulation of the HCl concentration is purely subjective. And even though we are manipulating the concentration, we are not physically manipulating the characteristics of the particles in HCl. We simply affected the intensity, we didn't change the nature of what the particles do naturally.

Science isn't what makes things happen, it's a field of study devoted to trying to understand why things happen. I'm not going to argue whether or not there are objective truths, that's a separate issue all together, but I am saying science can't prove objective truths. Science relies upon subjective means, so any information it comes up with is subjective, so in the end we still have to rely upon someone's personal interpretation (or a series of people's personal interpretations) of what the correct answer is.

I'm not saying that science is what makes things happen.

I'm saying that science is the naturally occurring interactions between matter, etc. This is objective. Because these interactions remain constant in the absence of humanity and our subjectivity.

The subjective part comes into play when we use techniques, technology, etc to observe and manipulate these interactions.

And we define these interactions by categorizing them into fields of study.




I get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that science in itself is the interactions between different forms of matter. The science isn't what we do to observe what is occurring natural. The science is what is occurring naturally.

We apply techniques to observe and manipulate the science. And we define what we do into fields of science i. e. physics, chemistry, etc