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]

Riviera de la Mancha

Yes, interpretation is needed for analysis. What you don't get though is that the scientific method is just that; a method. Means of determining facts under the scientific method are not contingent on your opinion at all. The method merely assesses what is. To attempt to apply the scientific method to a discussion of what x means is an entirely separate stage and not to be confused with the scientific method, which is the essence and fundamental nature of science.

The scientific method (as a method) must be employed by humans, so the issue objectivity does not lie in the idea of the scientific method, but the execution. It is when I perform my tests, record my data, and analyze my results that subjectivity comes into play.

Quote:

So, while I already mentioned that facts themselves are meaningless, you muddle too much in assuming that its impossible to derive facts themselves because our giving them meaning will invariably to some extent include an element of the subjective.

How doesn't it? My interpretation of data is subjective, it's not as if given a set of data there is only one possible answer, there are virtually infinite numbers of possible explanations.

Quote:

And finally, not only is it entirely possible to account for variables, it also does not mean that a study was not objective because variables have a slight play in the results. And remember, by variables, I mean those other factual influences that effect scientific data (none of which are subjective, i.e. my will cannot change the constant force of gravity.).

1) How does one objectively decide what variable doesn't belong?
2)Who says the force of gravity is constant?

[Project 429]

frozen_water

Project 429

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.

That's a rather vague proposal. What does 'putting it on a pedestal' even mean? I'm so confused.

Put on a pedestal as in elevated above other fields. Science is seen as having somehow accessed "truth" in a way other "subjective" fields cannot.

Science isn't a field, it's a method. On what grounds do you say subjectivity exists, anyway?

[I AM R U]

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.

Indeed.

[frozen_water]

Project 429

frozen_water

Project 429

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.

That's a rather vague proposal. What does 'putting it on a pedestal' even mean? I'm so confused.

Put on a pedestal as in elevated above other fields. Science is seen as having somehow accessed "truth" in a way other "subjective" fields cannot.

Science isn't a field, it's a method. On what grounds do you say subjectivity exists, anyway?

The scientific method is a thing, it's not all of science. Science is a field of study dealing with how the universe works. (The scientific method is a tool it uses.)

Subjectivity exists because during the processes of obtaining data, synthesizing it, and analyzing it the end product is subjected to the thoughts, opinions, and determinations of individual people. There is no way of producing objective facts through subjective interpretations.

[Project 429]

frozen_water

Project 429

frozen_water

Project 429

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.

That's a rather vague proposal. What does 'putting it on a pedestal' even mean? I'm so confused.

Put on a pedestal as in elevated above other fields. Science is seen as having somehow accessed "truth" in a way other "subjective" fields cannot.

Science isn't a field, it's a method. On what grounds do you say subjectivity exists, anyway?

The scientific method is a thing, it's not all of science. Science is a field of study dealing with how the universe works. (The scientific method is a tool it uses.)

Subjectivity exists because during the processes of obtaining data, synthesizing it, and analyzing it the end product is subjected to the thoughts, opinions, and determinations of individual people. There is no way of producing objective facts through subjective interpretations.

If you're going to go all solipsistic on me let me know right now so I can go do something more productive with my time than debate metaphysics with someone who believes that my very existence reasonably might be their delusion.

Everything is subjected to the thoughts, opinions and determinations of individuals. That doesn't mean all thoughts, opinions and determinations are equally valid and deserving of equal respect. Some thoughts, opinions and determinations are quite stupid. And it certainly doesn't mean that objectivity can't be found through subjective interpretations. It also doesn't mean that all 'subjective' concepts are equally valid.

Do you even philosophy, bro?

[Andy Worhal]

Project 429

Do you even philosophy, bro?

i actually wrote a book on philosophy

[frozen_water]

Project 429

Everything is subjected to the thoughts, opinions and determinations of individuals. That doesn't mean all thoughts, opinions and determinations are equally valid and deserving of equal respect.

Of course not, that's why I use reason and logic to judge which ideas seem to be more valid. I don't view subjectivity as a negative thing, just the nature of life.

Quote:

Some thoughts, opinions and determinations are quite stupid. And it certainly doesn't mean that objectivity can't be found through subjective interpretations.

How can it be?

Quote:

If that is the case, nothing is objective.

Nothing is objective? Perhaps. I like to believe there are objective truths there's just no way of proving them, through science or otherwise.

Quote:

Do you even philosophy, bro?

As a matter of fact it's my major. Specifically STS studies.

[Project 429]

frozen_water

Project 429

Everything is subjected to the thoughts, opinions and determinations of individuals. That doesn't mean all thoughts, opinions and determinations are equally valid and deserving of equal respect.

Of course not, that's why I use reason and logic to judge which ideas seem to be more valid. I don't view subjectivity as a negative thing, just the nature of life.

Quote:

Some thoughts, opinions and determinations are quite stupid. And it certainly doesn't mean that objectivity can't be found through subjective interpretations.

How can it be?

Quote:

If that is the case, nothing is objective.

Nothing is objective? Perhaps. I like to believe there are objective truths there's just no way of proving them, through science or otherwise.

Quote:

Do you even philosophy, bro?

As a matter of fact it's my major. Specifically STS studies.

Now I have absolutely no clue with what you meant by science taking the place of religion.

[Apoplexic]

Read OP, tl;dr the rest.

While I agree with you that portraying "science" as a deific truth is in no manner different from a religious belief system, I disagree that those with such views are correct. Correct, as in to say logical, which in turn is to say scientific.

On the basest level of our understanding of the universe, it does not appear to follow any of the laws we have dictated (based on methods and approaches throughout the course of human history) that it should. It is random, chaotic, and disturbed even by our observation of it.

That alone would lead any rational "scientist" (and in this case I use that term to mean "one who has replaced religion with science) to further question his/her beliefs.

The only absolute truth, so far, is that there is no absolute truth. Coming from science, religion, or elsewhere.

[frozen_water]

Project 429

frozen_water

Project 429

Everything is subjected to the thoughts, opinions and determinations of individuals. That doesn't mean all thoughts, opinions and determinations are equally valid and deserving of equal respect.

Of course not, that's why I use reason and logic to judge which ideas seem to be more valid. I don't view subjectivity as a negative thing, just the nature of life.

Quote:

Some thoughts, opinions and determinations are quite stupid. And it certainly doesn't mean that objectivity can't be found through subjective interpretations.

How can it be?

Quote:

If that is the case, nothing is objective.

Nothing is objective? Perhaps. I like to believe there are objective truths there's just no way of proving them, through science or otherwise.

Quote:

Do you even philosophy, bro?

As a matter of fact it's my major. Specifically STS studies.

Now I have absolutely no clue with what you meant by science taking the place of religion.

I already said this, you misunderstand my point if you view it as being one in which Science = religion. The OP was about how science is seen an objective, (as other fields are not) and as an extension many people don't question science because they view it's results as fact.

The idea of science producing facts makes it somehow infallible, you can't argue a fact after all, it just is correct. People (not everyone but as a general view) seem to set science apart from other fields as objective and free from human subjectivity giving it some sort of elevated status, and making it near impossible to question the products, or at least making the products of science superior to those of other fields.

[Project 429]

frozen_water

many people don't question science because they view it's results as fact.

Who?

[frozen_water]

Project 429

frozen_water

many people don't question science because they view it's results as fact.

Who?

Mainly those adhering to ideas such as Logical positivism or realism, although these terms are very specific and I'm inclined to think the population could be expanded to include anyone with similar views. Historically speaking these and similar ideas have been the majority view.

[Eyerunny]

Apoplexic

The only absolute truth, so far, is that there is no absolute truth.

Paradox. 1≠0

[Apoplexic]

Eyerunny

Apoplexic

The only absolute truth, so far, is that there is no absolute truth.

Contradiction. 1≠0

Zero does not exist; there is no such thing as nothing.
So really, the contradiction is 0≠0.
But this is still rather counter to the point I was making.

[Eyerunny]

Apoplexic

Eyerunny

Apoplexic

The only absolute truth, so far, is that there is no absolute truth.

Contradiction. 1≠0

Zero does not exist; there is no such thing as nothing.
So really, the contradiction is 0≠0.
But this is still rather counter to the point I was making.

Absence of a thing implies potential to have a thing, which is a thing.
An absolute truth of an absence of any absolute truth contradicts itself by being postulated as an absolute truth.
You concluded your post with that self-contradictory statement. If that was not the point you were making why say it, especially with a tone of finality?