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]

Doubtful Dreamer

So, having read the OP, I am a bit confused as to approach this as "science" is defined as "field of study." In this case, of course science is subjective because many fields of study are based entirely upon subjectivity [for example, the field of literary criticism]. So, I will address this from the position of the hard sciences, those which apply the scientific method to physical systems.

I'm unfamiliar with any scientific field which does not involve the scientific method, it's pretty central.

Quote:

To this extent, the goal of the science is not to portray truth, but rather present a model which asymptotically approaches the behavior of the observed universe. Thus, if the universe is objective, then these sciences should approach objectivity through ever refined models of the universe.

Approaches, but does not reach.

Quote:

Is it entirely objective at this time? Well, no as people are rather willing to lie about or make up results in order to advance pet theories. Many such instances are caught, but some make it through as a result of the sheer amount of scientific data there is.

It is also subjective in unintentional ways, such as when I interpret my data my interpretation is based upon my own experience. However, my point again is not that science is bad, just that people should realize that what science does is approximations and theories, not facts and objective truths.

Quote:

Now, turning to some of the examples the OP has used that I have seen:
1.) The idea of dry ice being "cold" vs. "hot" is entirely subjective because cold and hot are not absolute terms and are thus not a scientific description of the object. It would work as a very crude science, but things have been refined and thermodynamics gives a rather exact method for ranking the thermal energy of dry ice. It will not tell you whether it is cold or hot, but it will tell you that it has a given temperature on an absolute scale and thus is relatively "warmer" or "colder" than other objects on the same scale.

You misunderstood this example. It was illustrating a point on myself, as a person, making the observation is doing so subjectively, and (assuming dry ice really is objectively cold) through my observation I do not reach an objective truth. When I touch it it feels hot. This was specific to the given hypothetical in that discussion and should not be taken out of context or applied on a large scale to the rest of the discussion.

Quote:

2.) Heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is a tad trickier as the geocentric model could be continually modified to more accurately account for orbital motions, but there are several other phenomena which the theory must contend with other than stellar motion. For example,gravitational forces would be rather screwy by the assertion that the Earth is stationary as the mass of extraterrestrial bodies is measurable. Another problem is that we can now measure the velocity of the solar wind at different planets in the solar system and observe that all the planets must either orbit the sun or be orbited in a way similar to the Earth. Since this is not possible through the addition of epicycles to a geocentric model, but is possible with the heliocentric model, the geocentric model is demonstrably false.

Not necessarily, the geocentric model is only to explain orbital motions, that's all it needs to do, there could be other theories provided to cover gravity and such phenomenon.

Obviously doing so would be silly as we have a working model in place, but the point of that second point is just to demonstrate Undertermination, not to advocate using the geocentric model.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

frozen_water

I'm unfamiliar with any scientific field which does not involve the scientific method, it's pretty central.

Science, when defined as being "field of study," need not include only fields which apply the scientific method. See political science, computer science, mathematics, etc. All are often referred to as sciences, but make little to no use of the scientific method. Computer science and mathematics are both logical constructs and thus have no need for the scientific method as they can be proven absolutely within their own framework, but political science is largely driven by subjective opinion with little to no use of real data.

Quote:

It is also subjective in unintentional ways, such as when I interpret my data my interpretation is based upon my own experience. However, my point again is not that science is bad, just that people should realize that what science does is approximations and theories, not facts and objective truths.

Given that modern data analysis is a statistical process, the only way to through out objectivity is to arbitrarily exclude data from the analysis to alter the results to fit some pet theory, as I described above.

Quote:

You misunderstood this example. It was illustrating a point on myself, as a person, making the observation is doing so subjectively, and (assuming dry ice really is objectively cold) through my observation I do not reach an objective truth. When I touch it it feels hot. This was specific to the given hypothetical in that discussion and should not be taken out of context or applied on a large scale to the rest of the discussion.

This is because, as I explained, you are using an arbitrary scale that has no objective basis.

Quote:

Not necessarily, the geocentric model is only to explain orbital motions, that's all it needs to do, there could be other theories provided to cover gravity and such phenomenon.

Obviously doing so would be silly as we have a working model in place, but the point of that second point is just to demonstrate Undertermination, not to advocate using the geocentric model.

It must be internally consistent with all presented data which regards orbital motions. The solar wind data rather definitively damns any geocentric model as being inconsistent with all observations regarding the motions of extraterrestrial bodies.

[I do realize that the point was not to advocate geocentrism, but they are not equal as there is a large amount of data which does not fit into a geocentric model and thus there is no level of indeterminism, at least currently, in this theory. A better example of this might be something like Bohmian mechanics vs. true quantum indeterminancy where a wave guide acts as a non-local hidden variable and reduces quantum mechanics into a hidden variable theory such as statistical mechanics/thermodynamics is for classical mechanics. Both give the same results in all experiments carried out, but have radically different underpinnings and plain quantum mechanics is chosen largely because it is easier to work with.]

[frozen_water]

Doubtful Dreamer

frozen_water

I'm unfamiliar with any scientific field which does not involve the scientific method, it's pretty central.

Science, when defined as being "field of study," need not include only fields which apply the scientific method. See political science, computer science, mathematics, etc. All are often referred to as sciences, but make little to no use of the scientific method. Computer science and mathematics are both logical constructs and thus have no need for the scientific method as they can be proven absolutely within their own framework, but political science is largely driven by subjective opinion with little to no use of real data.

I'll concede they don't all use the scientific method, the point of clarification was there to indicate I was not discussing science as natural occurrences, but as the method of understanding the world around us.

Quote:

Quote:

It is also subjective in unintentional ways, such as when I interpret my data my interpretation is based upon my own experience. However, my point again is not that science is bad, just that people should realize that what science does is approximations and theories, not facts and objective truths.

Given that modern data analysis is a statistical process, the only way to through out objectivity is to arbitrarily exclude data from the analysis to alter the results to fit some pet theory, as I described above.

Depends on the data you're referring to, if you're just talking about a set of numbers, sure those are what they are, but they aren't indicative of any objective truth. If you're talking about data as is presented within scientific research then it is subjective.

If you're referring to data as in how it's presented to us then it's always given to us in a subjective way. Unless I'm handed a list of numbers, which would do me no good, it's got some level of interpretation. Let's say that I'm given a chart outlining the presence of fossilized bacteria in an area. The chart then outlines the presence of each type of bacteria. You'd think up to this point that it's all objective, however, someone had to sit down and look at teeny tiny little bacteria through a microscope that all look surprisingly similar, and then decide which type of bacteria they thought each one was. They had to depend upon their own expertise, not some objective guideline to make such a decision. Then the data is recorded, (here we can see how the data is not purely objective as it required interpretation). On top of that scientists then interpret what those findings mean and layers of subjectivity are added.

Quote:

Quote:

You misunderstood this example. It was illustrating a point on myself, as a person, making the observation is doing so subjectively, and (assuming dry ice really is objectively cold) through my observation I do not reach an objective truth. When I touch it it feels hot. This was specific to the given hypothetical in that discussion and should not be taken out of context or applied on a large scale to the rest of the discussion.

This is because, as I explained, you are using an arbitrary scale that has no objective basis.

As I said the example cannot be taken out of context. It was specifically addressing an issue raised by Willow of Darkness that does not apply outside of it.

Quote:

Quote:

Not necessarily, the geocentric model is only to explain orbital motions, that's all it needs to do, there could be other theories provided to cover gravity and such phenomenon.

Obviously doing so would be silly as we have a working model in place, but the point of that second point is just to demonstrate Undertermination, not to advocate using the geocentric model.

It must be internally consistent with all presented data which regards orbital motions. The solar wind data rather definitively damns any geocentric model as being inconsistent with all observations regarding the motions of extraterrestrial bodies.

[I do realize that the point was not to advocate geocentrism, but they are not equal as there is a large amount of data which does not fit into a geocentric model and thus there is no level of indeterminism, at least currently, in this theory. A better example of this might be something like Bohmian mechanics vs. true quantum indeterminancy where a wave guide acts as a non-local hidden variable and reduces quantum mechanics into a hidden variable theory such as statistical mechanics/thermodynamics is for classical mechanics. Both give the same results in all experiments carried out, but have radically different underpinnings and plain quantum mechanics is chosen largely because it is easier to work with.]

Sure, you can pick whatever examples you'd like. I was specifically speaking to the orbits as witnessed from Earth, such as was the case being looked at back at the time Ptolemaic vs. Copernican was the issue. It's not as if Copernican model proved correct either, it took adjustments and reworking to make it function properly.

The point again is to show how the same observations can lead to different conclusions, even if one is attempting to be objective.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

frozen_water

Depends on the data you're referring to, if you're just talking about a set of numbers, sure those are what they are, but they aren't indicative of any objective truth. If you're talking about data as is presented within scientific research then it is subjective.

If you're referring to data as in how it's presented to us then it's always given to us in a subjective way. Unless I'm handed a list of numbers, which would do me no good, it's got some level of interpretation. Let's say that I'm given a chart outlining the presence of fossilized bacteria in an area. The chart then outlines the presence of each type of bacteria. You'd think up to this point that it's all objective, however, someone had to sit down and look at teeny tiny little bacteria through a microscope that all look surprisingly similar, and then decide which type of bacteria they thought each one was. They had to depend upon their own expertise, not some objective guideline to make such a decision. Then the data is recorded, (here we can see how the data is not purely objective as it required interpretation). On top of that scientists then interpret what those findings mean and layers of subjectivity are added.

Well, I don't have much experience in bacterial paleontology and didn't really think such a thing worked out. From what I can, though, since it is largely subjective telling bacteria apart aside from a select group of bacteria, they don't really do it and instead just say that it is fossilized bacteria some set of characteristics is apparent in the population presented [though, again, I am a physicist and have no experience with this field aside from what some quick poking around google could show me]. If you were doing this with living cells, identification is very straightforward through either genetic analysis or by identification of the cellular structure [both of which can be and often are entirely automated with no human input at the present time].

In either case, the type of data being looked at is reducible to numerical data which can be statistically analyzed. If this is not the case, then there is no meaningful way to analyze the data and it is largely meaningless in the current state of the sciences.

[frozen_water]

Doubtful Dreamer

frozen_water

Depends on the data you're referring to, if you're just talking about a set of numbers, sure those are what they are, but they aren't indicative of any objective truth. If you're talking about data as is presented within scientific research then it is subjective.

If you're referring to data as in how it's presented to us then it's always given to us in a subjective way. Unless I'm handed a list of numbers, which would do me no good, it's got some level of interpretation. Let's say that I'm given a chart outlining the presence of fossilized bacteria in an area. The chart then outlines the presence of each type of bacteria. You'd think up to this point that it's all objective, however, someone had to sit down and look at teeny tiny little bacteria through a microscope that all look surprisingly similar, and then decide which type of bacteria they thought each one was. They had to depend upon their own expertise, not some objective guideline to make such a decision. Then the data is recorded, (here we can see how the data is not purely objective as it required interpretation). On top of that scientists then interpret what those findings mean and layers of subjectivity are added.

Well, I don't have much experience in bacterial paleontology and didn't really think such a thing worked out. From what I can, though, since it is largely subjective telling bacteria apart aside from a select group of bacteria, they don't really do it and instead just say that it is fossilized bacteria some set of characteristics is apparent in the population presented [though, again, I am a physicist and have no experience with this field aside from what some quick poking around google could show me]. If you were doing this with living cells, identification is very straightforward through either genetic analysis or by identification of the cellular structure [both of which can be and often are entirely automated with no human input at the present time].

In either case, the type of data being looked at is reducible to numerical data which can be statistically analyzed. If this is not the case, then there is no meaningful way to analyze the data and it is largely meaningless in the current state of the sciences.

I'm gonna be honest, I've had a long day and for what ever reason I can't seem to grasp the point you're trying to make. If you wouldn't mind being patient with me and just clarifying.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

frozen_water

I'm gonna be honest, I've had a long day and for what ever reason I can't seem to grasp the point you're trying to make. If you wouldn't mind being patient with me and just clarifying.

Basically, as far as I can tell, the bacterial fossilization outside of a specific class of cyanobacteria does not preserve features that would be used to distinguish between bacteria visually. As a result, it is known that looking through a microscope to identify fossilized bacteria is largely subjective and isn't done.

Generally when it comes down to the hard sciences, the data must be presented as reproducible numbers because, for the example you presented, someone else is going to look at that fossil eventually and get an entirely different count of different kinds of bacteria and so will the next person and so on. As a result, it will either look the same as someone cooking their data or someone calling the noise a signal.

[frozen_water]

Doubtful Dreamer

frozen_water

I'm gonna be honest, I've had a long day and for what ever reason I can't seem to grasp the point you're trying to make. If you wouldn't mind being patient with me and just clarifying.

Basically, as far as I can tell, the bacterial fossilization outside of a specific class of cyanobacteria does not preserve features that would be used to distinguish between bacteria visually. As a result, it is known that looking through a microscope to identify fossilized bacteria is largely subjective and isn't done.

Generally when it comes down to the hard sciences, the data must be presented as reproducible numbers because, for the example you presented, someone else is going to look at that fossil eventually and get an entirely different count of different kinds of bacteria and so will the next person and so on. As a result, it will either look the same as someone cooking their data or someone calling the noise a signal.

It does happen, and it's not just within the narrow aspect of fossilized bacteria. It happens because as I said before there is no guide for such things.

Science is making progress into unexplored territory, so we have no way of knowing how our results should compare to objective truths. All scientists have to depend upon their own expertise or that of their seniors to try and produce results. Even if the the end results are numbers it take steps to get to that point.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

frozen_water

It does happen, and it's not just within the narrow aspect of fossilized bacteria. It happens because as I said before there is no guide for such things.

As I said, all such instances will either be not reproducible or will quickly appear to be noise rather than a true signal.

Quote:

Science is making progress into unexplored territory, so we have no way of knowing how our results should compare to objective truths. All scientists have to depend upon their own expertise or that of their seniors to try and produce results. Even if the the end results are numbers it take steps to get to that point.

Producing results is very easy: think up experiment, write it down, follow the steps, look at results, publish steps and results and see if other people get the same thing. Interpreting the data is a bit field dependent, but all will rely upon the same basic set of statistical tools and will draw conclusions appropriate to the field.

[frozen_water]

Doubtful Dreamer

frozen_water

It does happen, and it's not just within the narrow aspect of fossilized bacteria. It happens because as I said before there is no guide for such things.

As I said, all such instances will either be not reproducible or will quickly appear to be noise rather than a true signal.

That's a rather big assumption that, based on my experience speaking with professors who actually conduct such research, is inaccurate.

Quote:

Science is making progress into unexplored territory, so we have no way of knowing how our results should compare to objective truths. All scientists have to depend upon their own expertise or that of their seniors to try and produce results. Even if the the end results are numbers it take steps to get to that point.

Producing results is very easy: think up experiment, write it down, follow the steps, look at results, publish steps and results and see if other people get the same thing. Interpreting the data is a bit field dependent, but all will rely upon the same basic set of statistical tools and will draw conclusions appropriate to the field.You skipped to obtain results step there.

And it's only assumed that they draw appropriate conclusions, the only people who could know that their data is off is either someone who is equally well versed on the subject matter at hand or a senior in that field, and again they would be relying upon their seniority, not objectivity, to make such a decision.

[Tuah]

As a feeble-minded layman, I trust that science isn't some global conspiracy and that humanity isn't out to get me.

Why? It produces tangible results that I use in my everyday life.

I'm less inclined to believe that magical pixies are making my phone work, and that it is instead the result of science. Certainly, our understanding as a species could be faulty; we are not infallible. But the process is designed to be as close as we as humans can possibly achieve, and everyone is allowed to contribute to this process. And the fact that it produces results is testament to its effectiveness.

At least, much more than pixies are.

[frozen_water]

Tuah

As a feeble-minded layman, I trust that science isn't some global conspiracy and that humanity isn't out to get me.

Why? It produces tangible results that I use in my everyday life.

I'm less inclined to believe that magical pixies are making my phone work, and that it is instead the result of science. Certainly, our understanding as a species could be faulty; we are not infallible. But the process is designed to be as close as we as humans can possibly achieve, and everyone is allowed to contribute to this process. And the fact that it produces results is testament to its effectiveness.

At least, much more than pixies are.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point, as I fail to see the relevancy of pixies.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that Science is not objective?

[Tuah]

frozen_water

Tuah

As a feeble-minded layman, I trust that science isn't some global conspiracy and that humanity isn't out to get me.

Why? It produces tangible results that I use in my everyday life.

I'm less inclined to believe that magical pixies are making my phone work, and that it is instead the result of science. Certainly, our understanding as a species could be faulty; we are not infallible. But the process is designed to be as close as we as humans can possibly achieve, and everyone is allowed to contribute to this process. And the fact that it produces results is testament to its effectiveness.

At least, much more than pixies are.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point, as I fail to see the relevancy of pixies.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that Science is not objective?

I'm saying that absolute objectivity may be impossible, but science is much closer than anything else we've got to work with.

I'm still a bit uncertain, is this to demonstrate that since objective fact is impossible to obtain that it's perfectly fine to believe whatever one wants? Or is that what other people are applying toward your topic?

[frozen_water]

Tuah

frozen_water

Tuah

As a feeble-minded layman, I trust that science isn't some global conspiracy and that humanity isn't out to get me.

Why? It produces tangible results that I use in my everyday life.

I'm less inclined to believe that magical pixies are making my phone work, and that it is instead the result of science. Certainly, our understanding as a species could be faulty; we are not infallible. But the process is designed to be as close as we as humans can possibly achieve, and everyone is allowed to contribute to this process. And the fact that it produces results is testament to its effectiveness.

At least, much more than pixies are.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point, as I fail to see the relevancy of pixies.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that Science is not objective?

I'm saying that absolute objectivity may be impossible, but science is much closer than anything else we've got to work with.

Why is science closer than say... philosophy?

Quote:

I'm still a bit uncertain, is this to demonstrate that since objective fact is impossible to obtain that it's perfectly fine to believe whatever one wants?

If by fine you mean legitimate, then no. I don't think all that all ideas are equal.

Quote:

Or is that what other people are applying toward your topic?

Only those who don't read the OP properly.

[Tuah]

frozen_water

Tuah

frozen_water

Tuah

As a feeble-minded layman, I trust that science isn't some global conspiracy and that humanity isn't out to get me.

Why? It produces tangible results that I use in my everyday life.

I'm less inclined to believe that magical pixies are making my phone work, and that it is instead the result of science. Certainly, our understanding as a species could be faulty; we are not infallible. But the process is designed to be as close as we as humans can possibly achieve, and everyone is allowed to contribute to this process. And the fact that it produces results is testament to its effectiveness.

At least, much more than pixies are.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point, as I fail to see the relevancy of pixies.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that Science is not objective?

I'm saying that absolute objectivity may be impossible, but science is much closer than anything else we've got to work with.

Why is science closer than say... philosophy?

Quote:

I'm still a bit uncertain, is this to demonstrate that since objective fact is impossible to obtain that it's perfectly fine to believe whatever one wants?

If by fine you mean legitimate, then no. I don't think all that all ideas are equal.

Quote:

Or is that what other people are applying toward your topic?

Only those who don't read the OP properly.

Ah, alrightey. To those who do think that however, I always start with the helpful logical construct of Default = Void. Until something, assume nothing.

I don't see much difference between philosophy and the cutting-edge of science. Philosophy does with "what if?", which is always the next step beyond what we already know. Philosophy is an important part of science.

Philosophies which directly contradict what has been pretty well proven beyond a reasonable doubt is simply misinformed philosophy that is highly unlikely to produce anything useful.