10
   

Is science objective?

 
 
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:39 pm
Is science objective?
... And if it isn't, what is it?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 6,067 • Replies: 47

 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:07 pm
I believe science is truly objective, but that's not to say all scientists are objective.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:19 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Sometimes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  5  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:48 pm
You are anthropomorphizing science.

Science has no opinions. So science can't be said to be objective any more than rocks are objective.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 05:48 pm
@ebrown p,
That's base sophistry. Science is a human activity. Humans have opinions. Therefore science has opinions. A lot of them are deliberately not thought through.

When it says that 2+2=4 and that proves it is objective it is pulling the second oldest trick in the book.
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 07:28 pm
@spendius,
spendius said

Quote:
That's base sophistry. Science is a human activity. Humans have opinions. Therefore science has opinions. A lot of them are deliberately not thought through.


The sophistry is in your position. Brown's remark did not preclude human subjectivity vis a via the practice of science. It is pretty clear that you have little practical experience as a scientist who engages in the form of inquiry called scientific method.

Quote:
When it says that 2+2=4 and that proves it is objective it is pulling the second oldest trick in the book.


Yet if I borrow from you $4 on monday, and repay you $2 on tuesday and another $2 on wednesday I would be pulling a trick on you?

btw any scientific instrument that produces accurate data is objective.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:14 pm
The scientific method is certainly more objective them many other disciplines, however scientific methodology is subject to the objectivism of observation!

It also needs to be understood that science relies on models (not idealized absolutisms) which appear to fit the observations.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:23 pm
@ebrown p,
True, ebrown.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:37 pm
@spendius,
Fifty million years ago, the Earth was orbiting, in a way that would later be described by Newton and then Einstein, around the Sun which was converting Hydrogen into Helium (as it still does). Early mammals were evolving-- a process which would eventually lead to human beings...

All this and you are saying that at this time there was no science?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 01:25 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
PQ,

The word "objectivity" boils down to "agreement as to the means of successful prediction". The shifting states of the agreement network have been termed by Thamas Khun “paradigms”. Since “natural science” tends to use the relatively culture-free metalanguage of mathematics, such agreement is likely to hold more firmly than in other areas of human observation which are more susceptable to linguistic nuances. Natural science in essence assumes a concept of a "standard observer" separate from its "object of observation". However, species are altimately related to their "perceived world" by specific physiological interfaces and "needs" and this logically defeats "objectivity". Such a limitation has become significant in QM, and in pseudosciences such as psychology which seek to mimic physics. Psychology also has the more specific problem of seeking to analyse "the observer" per se which is a logical minefield.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 02:30 am
@fresco,
TYPOS CORRECTED !
PQ,

The word "objectivity" boils down to "agreement as to the means of successful prediction". The shifting states of the agreement network have been termed by Thomas Khun “paradigms”. Since “natural science” tends to use the relatively culture-free metalanguage of mathematics, such agreement is likely to hold more firmly than in other areas of human observation which are more susceptable to linguistic nuances. Natural science in essence assumes a concept of a "standard observer" separate from its "object of observation". However, species are ultimately related to their "perceived world" by specific physiological interfaces and "needs" and this logically defeats "objectivity". Such a limitation has become significant in QM, and in pseudosciences such as psychology which seek to mimic physics. Psychology also has the more specific problem of seeking to analyse "the observer" per se which is a logical minefield.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 03:35 am
@ossobuco,
Quote:
True, ebrown.


You seem in a strange position for someone who singles out D.H.Lawrence for adoration. His views on Darwin don't bear repetition. He was very much anti-mechanomorphism.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:04 am
Hey Spendius,

In 2003, according to Jim Sullivan and the editors of the Christian Science Monitor, Bob Dylan called himself “a 62-year-old Jewish atheist.”
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:27 am
@Chumly,
Well- he did once say that he was Jewish when he wanted to be so I suppose he's a Jewish atheist in a similar fashion. Not that I know what a Jewish atheist is.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:35 am
Bob Dylan has never been totally pinned down and I suspect it will not happen.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:42 am
I'm a Jewish Atheist in as much as ethnic origin & rejection of theism. Then again.........what's in a name?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 09:29 am
@Chumly,
This "Jewish atheist" issue brings to mind an apocryphal story from Northern Ireland during the "troubles".

A bearded guy was walking down a back street in Belfast when he was challenged by a couple of youths.
"Are you a Protestant or a Catholic ?, they demanded.
"I'm Jewish", he replied.
"But are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew ?", they persisted !
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 09:46 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Is science objective?
... And if it isn't, what is it?

Nothing in human consciousness can be completely objective, but in as much as we can objective about anything, science fits the bill.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 10:59 am
@fresco,
Cute!
0 Replies
 
chester1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 02:16 pm
Science is not objective. In order to collect empirical evidence and come to conclusions, scientists must use their own bias when chosing what should be tested.
The only way that science could be objective is if ALL the possiblities are considered, i.e. every possibility in the universe, and if the theory and conclusions are tested and retested for all time. This is impossible.
Science can come to the point of being accepted, when it has been repeated and repeated and accepted by the scientific community, but this does not mean it is 100% true. The accepted scientific theories and 'laws' are what the scientific community decides fit best into everything else that has been tested and accepted
But this is not objective, as soon as humans are involved, science becomes unobjective, because it is impossible for a human to be unbiased, and to test every possiblily until the end of time.
lol, searched this topic for my natural sciences tok essay, didn't realize how many people beleive in natural sciences being an infallible, completely objective topic.
 

Related Topics

Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Saturn as seen by Cassini - Discussion by littlek
What is a Light Year? - Question by Dorothy Parker
100 things which evolutionites hate - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is science objective?
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/31/2014 at 02:22:27