Welcome to Gaia! ::

Science is objective?

Of course, Science deals with cold hard facts. 0.48936170212766 48.9% [ 46 ]
No, science is subject to human interpreatation and subjectivity. 0.42553191489362 42.6% [ 40 ]
I don't know. 0.085106382978723 8.5% [ 8 ]
Total Votes:[ 94 ]
< 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 24 25 26 > >>
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
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.
You'd think so, but in actuality no. See: The case of Cyril Burt. Despite blatant proof that he was forging data it took forever for him to be discredited and there are still those who defend him. Not to mention if his data would have been closely scrutinized to begin with, he would have never been able to become so honored to begin with.

Quote:
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.
If by amazing you mean able to achieve great things sure.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
eiji_panda13
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
I don't think you understand what science is. It literally is not what you are observing, but the act of observing it. Science is the knowledge we gain from observations, not the actions we are observing.

For your reference.
You are confusing the ethics of understanding with how the world functions.

Also, you are under the false impression that the subjective is separate from the objective. When there is a truth, whether that be that the world functions as per a scientific theory or that God exists, it is always objective. Subjectivity, one's personal experience, is the means by which we are aware of anything which is true, anything which is objective, rather than being mutually exclusive with the objective.
frozen_water
eiji_panda13
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
I don't think you understand what science is. It literally is not what you are observing, but the act of observing it. Science is the knowledge we gain from observations, not the actions we are observing.

For your reference.


I'm not misunderstanding what science is. I was actually saying that science is both the naturally occurring interactions and the title we give to the field of studying and manipulating these interactions. I didn't make myself clear enough.

here's a different link for your reference.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science
(From the page)
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

a.) talking about the field of science
b.) talking about the natural occurrences
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
eiji_panda13
frozen_water
eiji_panda13
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
I don't think you understand what science is. It literally is not what you are observing, but the act of observing it. Science is the knowledge we gain from observations, not the actions we are observing.

For your reference.


I'm not misunderstanding what science is. I was actually saying that science is both the naturally occurring interactions and the title we give to the field of studying and manipulating these interactions. I didn't make myself clear enough.

here's a different link for your reference.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science
(From the page)
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

a.) talking about the field of science
b.) talking about the natural occurrences
Well I have no comment as to the objectivity of nature, it's not what the thread is about.
The Marvelous Joshua's avatar

Shirtless Humorist

5,700 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Team Jacob 100
Seems OP is retarded. Science is in no way a religion. Religions, once established, become infallible and once take hold, anything that dare go against it is burned and destroyed. Science however is always open to be proved wrong. If something doesn't fit, that's okay. Science waits and discovers the answers. But if it can't, science sure as hell isn't going to start bombing public buildings because String Theory didn't properly describe the 10th dimension correctly or we find that neutrinos travel faster than light.

In short, seems OP's limited knowledge has led to a wrong conclusion. So erase and start again. That's what science would do.


Edit: And yes of course there are going to be individuals that partake in the act of science that influence the results of their data by their own wish of the results of the data. But science is a method, and done right, is absolutely objective. Plato would approve.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
The Marvelous Joshua
Seems OP is retarded. Science is in no way a religion. Religions, once established, become infallible and once take hold, anything that dare go against it is burned and destroyed. Science however is always open to be proved wrong. If something doesn't fit, that's okay. Science waits and discovers the answers. But if it can't, science sure as hell isn't going to start bombing public buildings because String Theory didn't properly describe the 10th dimension correctly or we find that neutrinos travel faster than light.

In short, seems OP's limited knowledge has led to a wrong conclusion. So erase and start again. That's what science would do.
Seems someone has some grave misconceptions about how science works. You'd think science would instantly reject anything shown false, but they don't. See: Cyril Burt. Scientists are humans too, and unfortunately they act like them.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
The Marvelous Joshua

Edit: And yes of course there are going to be individuals that partake in the act of science that influence the results of their data by their own wish of the results of the data. But science is a method, and done right, is absolutely objective. Plato would approve.
How does one "do science right"? I suppose it would take being completely unbiased in anyway and being able to appeal to some ultimate truth to know the results are accurate. Sadly we live in the real world where this isn't possible.
The Marvelous Joshua's avatar

Shirtless Humorist

5,700 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Team Jacob 100
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua
Seems OP is retarded. Science is in no way a religion. Religions, once established, become infallible and once take hold, anything that dare go against it is burned and destroyed. Science however is always open to be proved wrong. If something doesn't fit, that's okay. Science waits and discovers the answers. But if it can't, science sure as hell isn't going to start bombing public buildings because String Theory didn't properly describe the 10th dimension correctly or we find that neutrinos travel faster than light.

In short, seems OP's limited knowledge has led to a wrong conclusion. So erase and start again. That's what science would do.
Seems someone has some grave misconceptions about how science works. You'd think science would instantly reject anything shown false, but they don't. See: Cyril Burt. Scientists are humans too, and unfortunately they act like them.

Read my edit. Science itself is not the individual scientists. And the ones who don't reject the ideas that have been proven false are wrong, but dedicated people. However, that's when they are considered borderline para-scientists, and everyone knows to stay away from them. Read Flim-Flam by James Randi, talks about all sorts of scientists that have made great achievements but have fallen short of reason after a while.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
The Marvelous Joshua
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua
Seems OP is retarded. Science is in no way a religion. Religions, once established, become infallible and once take hold, anything that dare go against it is burned and destroyed. Science however is always open to be proved wrong. If something doesn't fit, that's okay. Science waits and discovers the answers. But if it can't, science sure as hell isn't going to start bombing public buildings because String Theory didn't properly describe the 10th dimension correctly or we find that neutrinos travel faster than light.

In short, seems OP's limited knowledge has led to a wrong conclusion. So erase and start again. That's what science would do.
Seems someone has some grave misconceptions about how science works. You'd think science would instantly reject anything shown false, but they don't. See: Cyril Burt. Scientists are humans too, and unfortunately they act like them.

Read my edit. Science itself is not the individual scientists. And the ones who don't reject the ideas that have been proven false are wrong, but dedicated people. However, that's when they are considered borderline para-scientists, and everyone knows to stay away from them. Read Flim-Flam by James Randi, talks about all sorts of scientists that have made great achievements but have fallen short of reason after a while.
You realize Cyril Burt was was very mainstream right? And even now his work is still defended by some. He also is not the only case of this, fraud within science is far more prevalent than most people think.
The Marvelous Joshua's avatar

Shirtless Humorist

5,700 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Team Jacob 100
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua

Edit: And yes of course there are going to be individuals that partake in the act of science that influence the results of their data by their own wish of the results of the data. But science is a method, and done right, is absolutely objective. Plato would approve.
How does one "do science right"? I suppose it would take being completely unbiased in anyway and being able to appeal to some ultimate truth to know the results are accurate. Sadly we live in the real world where this isn't possible.

Plato said above all is empirical evidence. The evidence we gain by our senses and reason is the only way we can attain it. The science being done is correct, regardless of our limited tools. It still is not subjective.
The Marvelous Joshua's avatar

Shirtless Humorist

5,700 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Team Jacob 100
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua
Seems OP is retarded. Science is in no way a religion. Religions, once established, become infallible and once take hold, anything that dare go against it is burned and destroyed. Science however is always open to be proved wrong. If something doesn't fit, that's okay. Science waits and discovers the answers. But if it can't, science sure as hell isn't going to start bombing public buildings because String Theory didn't properly describe the 10th dimension correctly or we find that neutrinos travel faster than light.

In short, seems OP's limited knowledge has led to a wrong conclusion. So erase and start again. That's what science would do.
Seems someone has some grave misconceptions about how science works. You'd think science would instantly reject anything shown false, but they don't. See: Cyril Burt. Scientists are humans too, and unfortunately they act like them.

Read my edit. Science itself is not the individual scientists. And the ones who don't reject the ideas that have been proven false are wrong, but dedicated people. However, that's when they are considered borderline para-scientists, and everyone knows to stay away from them. Read Flim-Flam by James Randi, talks about all sorts of scientists that have made great achievements but have fallen short of reason after a while.
You realize Cyril Burt was was very mainstream right? And even now his work is still defended by some. He also is not the only case of this, fraud within science is far more prevalent than most people think.

Yes, but those are people. And you pretty much repeated the last half of my post lol. Science is not what people make of things, science is the method, and it is not objective. But my original scuff with you was when you claimed science was the new religion, which it is disgraceful that it would be described as that by anyone. Science means nothing is sacred, anything can be changed or altered according to new evidence.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
The Marvelous Joshua
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua

Edit: And yes of course there are going to be individuals that partake in the act of science that influence the results of their data by their own wish of the results of the data. But science is a method, and done right, is absolutely objective. Plato would approve.
How does one "do science right"? I suppose it would take being completely unbiased in anyway and being able to appeal to some ultimate truth to know the results are accurate. Sadly we live in the real world where this isn't possible.

Plato said above all is empirical evidence. The evidence we gain by our senses and reason is the only way we can attain it. The science being done is correct, regardless of our limited tools. It still is not subjective.
Facts are not handed down to us from some perfect source, when you rely upon your own personal observations that's subjective. It's well known your perceptions can deceive you, hallucinations can affect every sense. Reason I find is brilliant, I'm rather fond of philosophy myself, however I doubt you're defending the notion that philosophy is entirely objective.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
The Marvelous Joshua
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua
frozen_water
The Marvelous Joshua
Seems OP is retarded. Science is in no way a religion. Religions, once established, become infallible and once take hold, anything that dare go against it is burned and destroyed. Science however is always open to be proved wrong. If something doesn't fit, that's okay. Science waits and discovers the answers. But if it can't, science sure as hell isn't going to start bombing public buildings because String Theory didn't properly describe the 10th dimension correctly or we find that neutrinos travel faster than light.

In short, seems OP's limited knowledge has led to a wrong conclusion. So erase and start again. That's what science would do.
Seems someone has some grave misconceptions about how science works. You'd think science would instantly reject anything shown false, but they don't. See: Cyril Burt. Scientists are humans too, and unfortunately they act like them.

Read my edit. Science itself is not the individual scientists. And the ones who don't reject the ideas that have been proven false are wrong, but dedicated people. However, that's when they are considered borderline para-scientists, and everyone knows to stay away from them. Read Flim-Flam by James Randi, talks about all sorts of scientists that have made great achievements but have fallen short of reason after a while.
You realize Cyril Burt was was very mainstream right? And even now his work is still defended by some. He also is not the only case of this, fraud within science is far more prevalent than most people think.

Yes, but those are people. And you pretty much repeated the last half of my post lol. Science is not what people make of things, science is the method, and it is not objective. But my original scuff with you was when you claimed science was the new religion, which it is disgraceful that it would be described as that by anyone. Science means nothing is sacred, anything can be changed or altered according to new evidence.
I was making the point science is treated like a religion, not that science is in and of itself a religion. Although you do seem to be proving the point nicely.

They are people, and guess who conducts science? People.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games