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 ]

[Project 429]

frozen_water

Again, that's not how I'm using the terms.

Yeah, but who you quoted seemed to mean it in a Boolean sense. Which, by the way, Boolean Logic is definitely philosophy and it is very objective.

frozen_water

Philosophy, for starters. From there it becomes difficult for me to defend other fields because I am less involved in them, although I believe strong cases could be made for just about any field of study.

I ******** LOVE PHILOSOPHY

It operates in an entirely different realm than science though. Science is measurement. (Certain) Philosophy by nature can't really answer anything. That's the appeal - the question. It doesn't compete with science, so I don't see it being a good comparison.

[frozen_water]

frozen_water

Philosophy, for starters. From there it becomes difficult for me to defend other fields because I am less involved in them, although I believe strong cases could be made for just about any field of study.

I ******** LOVE PHILOSOPHY

It operates in an entirely different realm than science though. Science is measurement. Philosophy by it's nature can't really answer anything. That's the appeal - the question. It doesn't compete with science, so I don't see it being a good comparison.Science can exact more precise answers, but precision has nothing to do with validity or truth. By it's nature science is geared towards producing such specifics, philosophy deals with ideas and therefor the answers it provides come in the form of concepts and meanings.

And Philosophy certainly can provide answers. Philosophy deals with morals, if you believe in objective truths then surely you believe there is some objectively correct way of behaving? Philosophy can provide such answers.

Or perhaps you don't believe in objective morality, but you do believe in the existence of things right? Philosophy provides answers as to whether or not existence or non-existence is possible. Whether or not change is possible. All of these are answers, not questions.

[Avgvsto]

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

If they are subjected to our emotions, they are subjective, and therefore not objective.

Science is a tool. The people who make the tools are subjected to emotions and their reasons for making them but the tools themselves have no emotions. yes the form of a chair may be different due to emotional understanding of how it should be built but objectively it must follow things in order to be a working chair. My stance is not that science is subject to emotion, but rather is simply cultivated from it.

If science is cultivated within emotion, then it is subjected to it. I'm not sure you're making the case you intended to with those terms.

If that is the case then every object must be subjective for it is impossible to have human without emotion, thus in every form of thought there must be implied emotion. This is not to say there can be no objective concerns, for i disagree with your definition. To be subject to emotion is not the same to as having been created by an emotional creature. Regardless of the creator you may find it quite difficult to make a chair angry at you.

[Avgvsto]

frozen_water

I ******** LOVE PHILOSOPHY

My sister's professor from a time ago told me, "Scientists are just struggling philosophers."

[frozen_water]

Avgvsto

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

If they are subjected to our emotions, they are subjective, and therefore not objective.

Science is a tool. The people who make the tools are subjected to emotions and their reasons for making them but the tools themselves have no emotions. yes the form of a chair may be different due to emotional understanding of how it should be built but objectively it must follow things in order to be a working chair. My stance is not that science is subject to emotion, but rather is simply cultivated from it.

If science is cultivated within emotion, then it is subjected to it. I'm not sure you're making the case you intended to with those terms.

If that is the case then every object must be subjective for it is impossible to have human without emotion, thus in every form of thought there must be implied emotion. This is not to say there can be no objective concerns, for i disagree with your definition. To be subject to emotion is not the same to as having been created by an emotional creature. Regardless of the creator you may find it quite difficult to make a chair angry at you.

No, every object is not subjective, but every object (that was created artificially-not through naturally occurrences) was created subjectively. Every object's form is subjective.

In the same way science as an idea (much as the idea of chair) is not subjective, but science in reality, when it is given form such as through theories or data (the making of a chair) is a subjective product. So while the idea of chair may be objective, any chair I create will by subjective understanding of that idea.

[Project 429]

frozen_water

frozen_water

Philosophy, for starters. From there it becomes difficult for me to defend other fields because I am less involved in them, although I believe strong cases could be made for just about any field of study.

I ******** LOVE PHILOSOPHY

It operates in an entirely different realm than science though. Science is measurement. Philosophy by it's nature can't really answer anything. That's the appeal - the question. It doesn't compete with science, so I don't see it being a good comparison.

Science can exact more precise answers, but precision has nothing to do with validity or truth. By it's nature science is geared towards producing such specifics, philosophy deals with ideas and therefor the answers it provides come in the form of concepts and meanings.

And Philosophy certainly can provide answers. Philosophy deals with morals, if you believe in objective truths then surely you believe there is some objectively correct way of behaving? Philosophy can provide such answers.

Or perhaps you don't believe in objective morality, but you do believe in the existence of things right? Philosophy provides answers as to whether or not existence or non-existence is possible. Whether or not change is possible. All of these are answers, not questions.

Morality isn't a field of science though.

[Avgvsto]

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

If they are subjected to our emotions, they are subjective, and therefore not objective.

Science is a tool. The people who make the tools are subjected to emotions and their reasons for making them but the tools themselves have no emotions. yes the form of a chair may be different due to emotional understanding of how it should be built but objectively it must follow things in order to be a working chair. My stance is not that science is subject to emotion, but rather is simply cultivated from it.

If science is cultivated within emotion, then it is subjected to it. I'm not sure you're making the case you intended to with those terms.

If that is the case then every object must be subjective for it is impossible to have human without emotion, thus in every form of thought there must be implied emotion. This is not to say there can be no objective concerns, for i disagree with your definition. To be subject to emotion is not the same to as having been created by an emotional creature. Regardless of the creator you may find it quite difficult to make a chair angry at you.

No, every object is not subjective, but every object (that was created artificially-not through naturally occurrences) was created subjectively. Every object's form is subjective.

In the same way science as an idea (much as the idea of chair) is not subjective, but science in reality, when it is given form such as through theories or data (the making of a chair) is a subjective product. So while the idea of chair may be objective, any chair I create will by subjective understanding of that idea.

Yes. Were we arguing the same thing the whole time or did i just convince you? In the same way certain logical axioms and correspondence of science towards those ends are objective (like the idea of chair), but the method and creation of it is subjective(like it's actual form and how you decide to create it). So then you agree the logical parts of science can be objective to a fault?

[The Willow Of Darkness]

frozen_water

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

The problem is that there is no real "inch" there is just an abstract concept which can never be perfectly replicated. So regardless of the ruler being used the measurements are only approximations relying upon the best object we have at hand. We could decide which ruler we think is better based on comparing our rulers to other rulers, but then the one we choose is just the better of the two, there is no perfect ruler we could compare it to so we know we got it right.

You are wrong about this. Abstract concepts are just as real as physical objects.

There doesn't need to be a standard ruler. In this case you have different rulers which each have an objective measure distance, assuming they are different in length.

If I'm aiming for something that is a foot in length, how can you determine it is precisely a foot in length?

A nonsensical question.

The foot is defined by the distance you measure with. Accuracy is not a question for the definition of a measurement system. If you, for example, were to take a stick and put to marks on to create a new standard uint of measurement, it would be its definition be that long.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

If they are subjected to our emotions, they are subjective, and therefore not objective.

Science is a tool. The people who make the tools are subjected to emotions and their reasons for making them but the tools themselves have no emotions. yes the form of a chair may be different due to emotional understanding of how it should be built but objectively it must follow things in order to be a working chair. My stance is not that science is subject to emotion, but rather is simply cultivated from it.

If science is cultivated within emotion, then it is subjected to it. I'm not sure you're making the case you intended to with those terms.

If that is the case then every object must be subjective for it is impossible to have human without emotion, thus in every form of thought there must be implied emotion. This is not to say there can be no objective concerns, for i disagree with your definition. To be subject to emotion is not the same to as having been created by an emotional creature. Regardless of the creator you may find it quite difficult to make a chair angry at you.

No, every object is not subjective, but every object (that was created artificially-not through naturally occurrences) was created subjectively. Every object's form is subjective.

In the same way science as an idea (much as the idea of chair) is not subjective, but science in reality, when it is given form such as through theories or data (the making of a chair) is a subjective product. So while the idea of chair may be objective, any chair I create will by subjective understanding of that idea.

You've got this reversed. All claims about the nature of reality are objective. It is the objective which appears within the subjective, not the subjective which creates the objective.

[frozen_water]

Avgvsto

Yes. Were we arguing the same thing the whole time or did i just convince you?

Not really, if we've been arguing the same thing you have not done a good job clarifying your position. You did say this:

Quote:

My stance is not that science is subject to emotion, but rather is simply cultivated from it.

Which implies you don't think science is subjected to emotion.

Quote:

In the same way certain logical axioms and correspondence of science towards those ends are objective (like the idea of chair), but the method and creation of it is subjective(like it's actual form and how you decide to create it). So then you agree the logical parts of science can be objective

Parts of science? I don't think so. I think only the idea of science can be objective. As in, there is a definite concept of science, or a form of science if you will.

Quote:

[ science can be objective] to a fault?

Not sure I follow you on this part.

[Avgvsto]

frozen_water

You're being boringly semantical.

[frozen_water]

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

The problem is that there is no real "inch" there is just an abstract concept which can never be perfectly replicated. So regardless of the ruler being used the measurements are only approximations relying upon the best object we have at hand. We could decide which ruler we think is better based on comparing our rulers to other rulers, but then the one we choose is just the better of the two, there is no perfect ruler we could compare it to so we know we got it right.

You are wrong about this. Abstract concepts are just as real as physical objects.

There doesn't need to be a standard ruler. In this case you have different rulers which each have an objective measure distance, assuming they are different in length.

If I'm aiming for something that is a foot in length, how can you determine it is precisely a foot in length?

A nonsensical question.

The foot is defined by the distance you measure with. Accuracy is not a question for the definition of a measurement system. If you, for example, were to take a stick and put to marks on to create a new standard uint of measurement, it would be its definition be that long.

A foot is a concept, a widely used and understood concept. It's not arbitrary like a random object, it should have a specific length if it's usage is to be appropriate, so our ability to accurately reproduce the same measurement for a foot is not non-nonsensical.

[Avgvsto]

The Willow Of Darkness

You've got this reversed. All claims about the nature of reality are objective. It is the objective which appears within the subjective, not the subjective which creates the objective.

I don't like when you just say things like this. You didn't even try to explain yourself.

[frozen_water]

The Willow Of Darkness

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

Avgvsto

frozen_water

If they are subjected to our emotions, they are subjective, and therefore not objective.

Science is a tool. The people who make the tools are subjected to emotions and their reasons for making them but the tools themselves have no emotions. yes the form of a chair may be different due to emotional understanding of how it should be built but objectively it must follow things in order to be a working chair. My stance is not that science is subject to emotion, but rather is simply cultivated from it.

If science is cultivated within emotion, then it is subjected to it. I'm not sure you're making the case you intended to with those terms.

If that is the case then every object must be subjective for it is impossible to have human without emotion, thus in every form of thought there must be implied emotion. This is not to say there can be no objective concerns, for i disagree with your definition. To be subject to emotion is not the same to as having been created by an emotional creature. Regardless of the creator you may find it quite difficult to make a chair angry at you.

No, every object is not subjective, but every object (that was created artificially-not through naturally occurrences) was created subjectively. Every object's form is subjective.

In the same way science as an idea (much as the idea of chair) is not subjective, but science in reality, when it is given form such as through theories or data (the making of a chair) is a subjective product. So while the idea of chair may be objective, any chair I create will by subjective understanding of that idea.

You've got this reversed. All claims about the nature of reality are objective. It is the objective which appears within the subjective, not the subjective which creates the objective.

No, I've got it straight. My claim is my opinion, based on my interpretation.

That's clearly not objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

[frozen_water]

Avgvsto

frozen_water

You're being boringly semantical.

It's not being semantical when you are blatantly misusing words. I'm not dismissing an argument based on literary tricks, it's honestly impossible to derive a clear meaning from your words.