Is science really "objective "?

[Someone here]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Consistency.

This isn't about my preference or your preference. Science does not produce knowledge, because knowledge is imaginary in the first place. It's just an alternative language to view the world through. Another way to put it is that science can only produce relative kind of "knowledge", but never absolute. Science cannot arrive at absolute truth even if it wanted to, because that's not what it's for.

To give an example, think of gravity. You might think that Isaac Newton somehow discovered gravity through science, and that gravity somehow explained something about the universe. But that's not actually true. If you think about gravity, it's literally just the phenomenon of objects falling down, or more simply the phenomenon of objects moving from up-to-down instead of from down-to-up. Newton simply thought and came up with a way of describing this phenomenon in a way that can be utilized with more accuracy when he proposed that the falling occurs due to the masses that objects hold (he invented this mass concept and the gravitational constant and somehow found a way to link between those concepts and distance). So he did not invent or discovered gravity per se, and gravity is not knowledge in any actual way, since the theory didn't actually explain anything the universe, but rather provided a framework to make use of.

Really, Newton was simply just smart enough to be able to translate the observable phenomenon of objects falling down into his famous mathematical equation: F = G(m1*m2)/R2, and this equation made it possible for us to manipulate the world in a way that serves our technical goals more accurately. But of course, this gravity equation does not work in dating and relationships, since bigger masses are not as attractive as the curvy ones 

So gravity is not an objective knowledge. It's rather just one possible interpretation/translation of the original observable phenomenon. If you're smart enough, you might be able to create your own gravity theory and call it something else, like the incredible Aakash theory. Instead of objects falling down, you might explain this phenomenon differently, like for example, you might say that objects are actually being pushed down from above instead of pulled down from below (credits to Phoebe from F.R.I.E.N.D.S). And if you somehow manage to find an equation that proves consistency, then you might get nominated or even earn a Nobel prize.

Gravity is not a hypothetical thing . Please research the scientific method .we first observe the the  phenomenon..then we come up with possible hypothesis that  have varying explanatory power..and after exhaustive attempts of experiments and trial and error we come to the right conclusion/hypothesis and then it becomes a theory .or even stronger than that a physical law . Laws of physics are baked into the structure of the universe. They are not invented. They are discovered.  And there is a huge difference between the two . The reason of the phenomenon of objects falling dowm instead of moving up has one explanation which is gravity. Now you can say that there is an invisible demon who lives 5000 feet under the ground who's pulling those objects down with his invisible ropes  ..but until you prove it using testing and empirical evidence then it will remain a hypothesis not a theory .

With that being said..There is no such thing as 100% objectivity in science because the foundational assumptions and method of science itself are not dictated by nature and forced upon us. Consequently, what is discovered by the scientific method of inquiry is true only relative to the conventions of science that are selected by the scientific community, and could have been chosen otherwise.

Even the 'hard data' of measurements only have well-defined meaning relative to the conventions of measurement that are chosen by the scientific community, and could be chosen otherwise, as is evident by the evolution of metrology and the periodic redefinition of basic units of time and length. Nature does not force upon us a particular standard for the measurement of time, for example. Yet scientific measurements of time would have little meaning unless they all were calibrated and traced back to a common universal standard. So, even scientific data are not 100% objective.

Science provides such reliable and universal knowledge not because it is 100% objective, but because it endeavors to precisely define universal methods for making measurements and correlating them consistently with each other. To the extent that we adhere to such controlled observations, we will have the assurance that what is observed will not be distorted by arbitrary uncontrolled factors. That is, by controlling observations, what is observed is clearly distinguished from what is observing. Only by clearly defining what is subjective, is an object clearly defined relative to that.

The situation is analogous in some ways to mathematical knowledge. There is no such thing as a purely objective truth in mathematics. The truth of a theorem is only defined relative to axioms and rules of inference that are freely assumed, and could be chosen otherwise. Once they are chosen, of course, then theorems are either true or false (or undecidable) relative to that freely chosen foundation. And it is only by making the definitions, axioms, and rules of inference completely clear and rigorous that we can have complete certainty of theorems relative to them.

About the utility thing ..scientists don't do their science just to invent more technologies and advance mankind ..that's a huge part of the scientific work..but more importantly science is in the busines of figuring out everything about nature.  The current objective of physics for example since the time of Einstein is to come up with a (TOE) :a theory of everything.  Can you tell me what's the utility of having a theory that explains absolutely everything In the universe? 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Consistency.

Ok, but you surely agree that relying on a structured scientific methodology is different from relying on say intuition to arrive at a conclusion? So the scientists in question have found a way to eliminate some (but not all) of their subjective influences on the situation, in so far as they're able to get generally the same result irrespective of who is doing the observation/experiment. "Scientific objectivity" refers to that thing.

[Someone here]

13 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

Science is an illusion, it is an imagination, even though it can be pretty helpful on the practical level. It is nothing but the patterns of consciousness, but of course, by studying the manifestation of consciousness, you can come to understandings about consciousness, yeah. 

Science is not an illusion.

The discussion here is whether science arrives at objective knowledge about the world.

My friend thinks Objectivity is a goal we can aspire to, but it can never be attained. To understand why, first we need to clarify what exactly is meant by objectivity.

Before we discuss science, let's start with mathematics. Most people would say that 2+2=4 is an example of an objective mathematical truth. But, in fact, it is only true relative to a certain set of axioms. You and I are free to choose different axioms, and 2+2=4 may be false for your axioms but true for mine. So, it is clearly not a completely objective truth. Similarly, if I adopt axioms of Euclidean geometry, the interior angles of a triangle always add up to 180°, while if you adopt axioms of non-Euclidean geometry, they do not. So, this geometrical proposition is not a completely objective truth. Because mathematical truth depends on our free, subjective choice of axioms, it is not completely objective. However, if we both adopt the same axioms, we will both necessarily agree upon what is true and what is false relative to that choice. In that sense, mathematical truth is objective, but only if we agree to constrain our subjective choices in the same way.

Now, let's consider objectivity in empirical science. Most people would say that the 100-yard length of a football field is an example of an objective fact. But, in fact, according to relativity, intervals of length are only well defined relative to our choice of reference frame. Such choice is a free, subjective choice. You can choose one frame, and I can choose another. And the football field will have one length in your frame and another length in mine. We can say the length of the field is objective only if we agree to constrain our subjective choice of reference frame in the same way, e.g., we both adopt the frame of the football field.

[Gesundheit2]

@Someone here Look dude, all you're doing here is just repeating the same things I'm saying only in a more formal/technical/philosophical way by rehashing something you have read but not gotten direct personal insight into. So you have all the correct data, but because you haven't contemplated it enough, you misinterpret it and therefore arrive at the wrong conclusions.

In simple terms, science can never answer the question what. It can only deal with questions that have to do with relative measures, like how, when, where, some whys, etc.

TOE attempts to answer the question how. The main utility is a temporary satisfaction of the human delusional/idealistic thirst for/seeking of knowledge. But I'm sure humans will come up with a lot more other ways to make use of it when/if it's complete.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, but you surely agree that relying on a structured scientific methodology is different from relying on say intuition to arrive at a conclusion? So the scientists in question have found a way to eliminate some (but not all) of their subjective influences on the situation, in so far as they're able to get generally the same result irrespective of who is doing the observation/experiment. "Scientific objectivity" refers to that thing.

I kind of agree, but not really.

The structured scientific methodology is itself intuitive in essence. And intuition in essence isn't just a dumb random feeling that comes up out of nowhere for no reason and no purpose. So the methodology does not replace intuition, it just generalizes that one instance that worked with the original scientist and makes it more reusable for people with less intuitive acuity than the original scientist. And that includes the methodology itself, because someone (or some group) with great intuitive acuity came up with it intuitively, then it was made public for everyone to use.

As for objectivity and subjectivity, I'm just trying to make a point to OP because in my estimation, his use of philosophy is distorting his perception of what science actually is, and I think that these terms will only add to the confusion.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

In simple terms, science can never answer the question what. It can only deal with questions that have to do with relative measures, like how, when, where, some whys, etc.

TOE attempts to answer the question how. The main utility is a temporary satisfaction of the human delusional/idealistic thirst for/seeking of knowledge. But I'm sure humans will come up with a lot more other ways to make use of it when/if it's complete.

I seriously considered skipping this  but I realized that doing so would have been an answer of sorts already. It's so misguided. Reducing science to just practical work to improve humanity's condition is a huge underestimating of science. I told you the ultimate objective of science is to have perfect and complete understanding of absolutely everything. So science can answer the whys ,the how's, the what's, and anything else .

 while I do believe that well-posed questions about Nature will always find answers in the sciences, there are plenty of philosophical questions that are of great interest to people, which will never have a “scientific” answer. For instance:

Why does the universe exist?

Why are we here?

What is the meaning of life?

And so on. As I said in a few of my answers, those seeking answers to these questions (and not being able to provide answers of their own) should seek advice from priests and philosophers, not scientists

Consider this:

10,000 years ago, we knew practically nothing. Now, we know a vast amount about how the universe works.

10,000 years is a blink of the cosmic eye. The universe is nearly 14 billion years old. If our species continues on its current trajectory for even one million years, we may understand all that there is to understand.

The universe appears to be deterministic. What this means is that each set of unique conditions appears to lead to one possible outcome that is unique, and cannot be arrived at by other initial conditions. Thus, it should be possible, albeit difficult, to know the initial conditions of the universe, and the conditions of the universe for every moment in time until the end of time.

Will we know everything soon? No. But it’s possible, we’re plucky, and we’ve got billions of years to keep learning.

My money is on the humans…or their descendants

[Gesundheit2]

@Someone here No, bro. There is not a single question in the world that has an answer whether through science or philosophy or anything else. Any answer is always self-referential and will always follow an infinite regression pattern. Answers are just stories, at best.

Consider this: Would there have been any science at all if it didn't promise profit? Do you really believe that what runs science is pure innocent curiosity?

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

There is not a single question in the world that has an answer whether through science or philosophy or anything else. Any answer is always self-referential and will always follow an infinite regression pattern. Answers are just stories, at best.

If I asked you what causes the night and day?  Isn't the answer simply that the earth rotates around its axis ?

Watch Leo's video called "the power of not knowing ". He pointed out the trap of confusing the first order type of knowledge and the second order type of knowledge. At the level of being..its true ..we don't know Jack shit ..we have no idea what anything is ...BUT that does not mean we can't know stuff relatively. To create a map that approaches the truth ,without actually reaching it fully. Because the truth is infinite .and our scientific instruments are finite .

 

8 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Consider this: Would there have been any science at all if it didn't promise profit? Do you really believe that what runs science is pure innocent curiosit

Well..you can read the history of science and how it originated after the dark ages in Europe.  It was a new way of understanding reality after religions have shown their impotence in that domain. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

The structured scientific methodology is itself intuitive in essence. And intuition in essence isn't just a dumb random feeling that comes up out of nowhere for no reason and no purpose. So the methodology does not replace intuition, it just generalizes that one instance that worked with the original scientist and makes it more reusable for people with less intuitive acuity than the original scientist. And that includes the methodology itself, because someone (or some group) with great intuitive acuity came up with it intuitively, then it was made public for everyone to use.

The methodology itself might've been conceived through an intuition on the part of some genius many years ago, but the application of it is different. It's like following a recipe for a pizza. When you made your pizza, you didn't conceive the recipe through your intuition. You just followed the recipe, and the result is a pizza.

When it comes to "scientific objectivity", it's the very application of the methodology that makes it objective, because it's not your methodology, and the very reason you're using it is so that you can filter out your biases. Sure, choosing a particular methodology involves a bias, but choosing a methodology is implicit in the "scientific" part (there is no science without it).

[Gesundheit2]

45 minutes ago, Someone here said:

If I asked you what causes the night and day?  Isn't the answer simply that the earth rotates around its axis ?

No, because the earth rotation is a theory, at least for the majority of people.

99.99% of people have never gone out into outer space to see the earth rotation phenomenon. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that it is not happening, but that virtually nobody has actually had first-hand experience of that phenomenon, which is what makes earth rotation a theory for most people.

Now, let's say that you are one of those people who have actually experienced that phenomenon directly. That would turn that theory into a "fact", and you will understand that it's one phenomenon being experienced from two points of view. From an external point of view, it looks like the earth is rotating. Whereas from an internal point of view, it looks like there's day and night. There's no causation, because that would imply separation, when clearly it's just one phenomenon experienced from two different points of view.

45 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Well..you can read the history of science and how it originated after the dark ages in Europe.  It was a new way of understanding reality after religions have shown their impotence in that domain. 

Science did not originate in Europe. It's inherent in every culture and human civilization. Our current scientific understanding is the aftermath of all of that, i.e. all the centuries of human evolution. Europe just happened to be at the last stop before our modern times.

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Science did not originate in Europe. It's inherent in every culture and human civilization. Our current scientific understanding is the aftermath of all of that, i.e. all the centuries of human evolution. Europe just happened to be at the last stop before our modern times.

Of course people have always tried to explain and understand the world around them, but modern science can be traced back to Descartes' assumption, that there is an objective world out there, that we can fully come to understand through the right methodology. Science is fundamentally grounded in duality (a subject that is independent of the world around it, thus able to explain and understand it objectively), which is ultimately baloney, of course, and has ironically been debunked by science for over 100 years now (think Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg...).

Edited August 19, 2022 by Nilsi

[Someone here]

36 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

No, because the earth rotation is a theory, at least for the majority of people.

99.99% of people have never gone out into outer space to see the earth rotation phenomenon. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that it is not happening, but that virtually nobody has actually had first-hand experience of that phenomenon, which is what makes earth rotation a theory for most people.

Now, let's say that you are one of those people who have actually experienced that phenomenon directly. That would turn that theory into a "fact", and you will understand that it's one phenomenon being experienced from two points of view. From an external point of view, it looks like the earth is rotating. Whereas from an internal point of view, it looks like there's day and night. There's no causation, because that would imply separation, when clearly it's just one phenomenon experienced from two different points of view.

Science did not originate in Europe. It's inherent in every culture and human civilization. Our current scientific understanding is the aftermath of all of that, i.e. all the centuries of human evolution. Europe just happened to be at the last stop before our modern times.

We trust scientists when they tell us that the earth is round without needing to see it for ourselves. Because the scientific method have always been successful and truthful in explaining reality.  The problem I notice with you is this extreme level of skepticism that its almost epistemological nihilism. 

There are a lot of things scientists do not know nor do they claim to. Like what is the reason for gravity. There must be something about matter in any form that causes it to be attracted to other matter. The list goes on and  on. The question that remains is do they know specifically what things they don’t know. No, they don’t even know that.

That doesn’t mean they do not feel good about the things they do know. If they didn’t think they knew a great deal about the world, there would not be such a thing as science. That would be glorious to those who want to keep everything in life a mystery.

The one thing scientists don’t know is what they don’t know because once they are made aware of what they don’t know, they know. You know? If that is confusing, suppose a scientist does not know that he does not know how to calculate the mass of the Earth relative to that of Mars. Once she is aware that she does not know how to calculate it, she now KNOWS where her knowledge falls short. Once the unknown is known, it can no longer be unknown.

[Gesundheit2]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The methodology itself might've been conceived through an intuition on the part of some genius many years ago, but the application of it is different. It's like following a recipe for a pizza. When you made your pizza, you didn't conceive the recipe through your intuition. You just followed the recipe, and the result is a pizza.

When it comes to "scientific objectivity", it's the very application of the methodology that makes it objective, because it's not your methodology, and the very reason you're using it is so that you can filter out your biases. Sure, choosing a particular methodology involves a bias, but choosing a methodology is implicit in the "scientific" part (there is no science without it).

Technically, the scientific method is nowhere near objective, because it's only the perception of 0.001% of people, namely the most hardcore PhD scientists. The rest of us just accept that perception on blind faith, and we deduce that consistency is evidence of the validity of that rare perception, because that's how we're programmed to think.

It's actually very similar to prophets and their God stories. Those prophets had their own methodology that they used to arrive at their "discoveries", and then the rest of the population who did not actually possess or understand or even conceive of that methodology just aped it after struggling hard and failing against it. Believe it or not, this prophet methodology also provided consistency under the circumstances that they used to live in.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Technically, the scientific method is nowhere near objective, because it's only the perception of 0.001% of people, namely the most hardcore PhD scientists. The rest of us just accept that perception on blind faith, and we deduce that consistency is evidence of the validity of that rare perception, because that's how we're programmed to think.

It's actually very similar to prophets and their God stories. Those prophets had their own methodology that they used to arrive at their "discoveries", and then the rest of the population who did not actually possess or understand or even conceive of that methodology just aped it after struggling hard and failing against it. Believe it or not, this prophet methodology also provided consistency under the circumstances that they used to live in.

You're just changing what is meant by objective in this case, from reproducibility of investigations to how accessible those investigations are.

[Gesundheit2]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're just changing what is meant by objective in this case, from reproducibility of investigations to how accessible those investigations are.

Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

https://skillstx.com/objective-vs-subjective/

Just the very first result of "objective vs subjective" Google search.

EDIT: I don't want to be disagreeing over semantic minutia. I just generally prefer to steer clear from these terms because they are very philosophical and abstract.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Carl-Richard]

@Gesundheit2

You're treating objective/subjective as absolutes. You have to ask in what sense is science objective? How is it comparably less subjective than something else?

[Ulax]

On 18/08/2022 at 1:27 PM, Someone here said:

What makes something "objective " is an interesting question. 

My definition is that It has to be 100% accurate description of the phenomenon at hand .unfiltered by humans biases and emotional state. 

For example..the electron weighs such and such..this fact can be considered objective if its actually a true proposition about the electron's mass .unfiltered or colored by the human observer's biases who took the measurements.

@Someone here Okay, gotcha. 

I believe every description made and that ever will be made is entirely filtered by human biases and emotional state.

Regarding your example, I'd say there are numerous subjective claims that are involved with that process. Any means of measurement is something subjectively created by man.

[Michael569]

On 17/08/2022 at 6:23 PM, Someone here said:

My friend takes a different position. He claims that science cannot be objective as there is always inherent bias. He thinks that science is at least to some degree subjective, that science isn't done in a vacuum so to speak, it's done by people -- people who are laden with social, political, and economic baggage -- and that science is done within an historical context.

I've been trying to read up on each side of this debate and it seems quite involved.

Every perspective is subjective, biased and partial. 

Scientific research is able to control for a multitude of biases, confactors, able to run multivariate analysis, stratification etc just to minimise the amount of biased outcomes whether caused by the observed, the participant, the environment, the nature of the data gathering etc but ofcourse there is always a room for further bias and science is run by people who get tired, lazy and want to cut corners occasionally. Industry funding is an issue too that stands in the way of honest science. 

On the other hand, anyone who says that scientific research is just biased dogmatism is throwing out the baby with water but of course we must not religiously reject non-scientific perspectives either and render them invalid. There is lot to learn from scientific paradigms and certain dimensions of reality can be explored and explained by science fairly well (e.g. space exploration, medicine, biology, chemistry) and other not as much (consciousness, spirituality, thoughts & emotions, energetic component of the human existence, intuition etc.) 

The answer is that it is not as simple as that. It depends and that each case is different. 

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Every perspective is subjective, biased and partial. 

Scientific research is able to control for a multitude of biases, confactors, able to run multivariate analysis, stratification etc just to minimise the amount of biased outcomes whether caused by the observed, the participant, the environment, the nature of the data gathering etc but ofcourse there is always a room for further bias and science is run by people who get tired, lazy and want to cut corners occasionally. Industry funding is an issue too that stands in the way of honest science. 

On the other hand, anyone who says that scientific research is just biased dogmatism is throwing out the baby with water but of course we must not religiously reject non-scientific perspectives either and render them invalid. There is lot to learn from scientific paradigms and certain dimensions of reality can be explored and explained by science fairly well (e.g. space exploration, medicine, biology, chemistry) and other not as much (consciousness, spirituality, thoughts & emotions, energetic component of the human existence, intuition etc.) 

The answer is that it is not as simple as that. It depends and that each case is different. 

I suppose science is really after an understanding of nature. To this extent it is purely a human endeavor that will be inextricably entangled within the realm of human reason and observation. It does seek to discover truths that are universal and therefore somewhat independent from we, the observers; and we therefore place the requirement of consistency to our discoveries; a consistency that must transcend culture, time and place.

The ‘scientific method' is designed to ensure that these universal objective ‘truths' about the workings and elements of nature revealed by observation are indeed consistent; thereby possessing some independence from the observer.

But that can't happen. As it is shown in quantum physics that the observer actually changes the structure of particles with the act of observation. So to do science that is 100% objective..we need to not involve with our minds in the process of doing ..which is impossible to do because we don't exist outside of reality and measure it from outside. We are deeply interwoven with the fabric of reality itself that we are trying to measure. 

[DocWatts]

Objectivity does not (necessarily) equate to Truth.

Objectivity is a construct that attempts to bypass the role that consiousness plays in constituting the world, in an attempt to gain a "view from nowhere."

Of course a "view from nowhere" is a contradiction in terms, because Reality is always viewed from a somewhere; from particular perspective. 

The shared world we live in intersubjective rather than objective. Insofar as science forgets that objectivity is a second order derivation from our direct experience, it falls into epistemic error.

Edited August 22, 2022 by DocWatts