Is Science Objective?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Raymond
Posts: 317
Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Raymond »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 6th, 2022, 12:30 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: April 6th, 2022, 10:01 am We must always be careful to distinguish the map from the territory.
Raymond wrote: April 6th, 2022, 10:33 am The point is that you don't know what the territory is if you consider it as a never reachable objective truth.
Yes. 👍 That's the wider point being made here, in our discussion of Objectivity. And yet the closer-focus point also stands: the map and the territory are two very different things, and we must always be sure not to confuse them.
But how can we make a map if we don't know the territory first?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Raymond wrote: April 6th, 2022, 2:36 pm But how can we make a map if we don't know the territory first?
If we knew the territory, why would we need a map?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Raymond
Posts: 317
Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Raymond »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 6th, 2022, 3:52 pm
Raymond wrote: April 6th, 2022, 2:36 pm But how can we make a map if we don't know the territory first?
If we knew the territory, why would we need a map?
For the same reason we use maps in foreign countries.
Buzzard3
Posts: 19
Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
Location: Australia

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Buzzard3 »

TheAstronomer wrote: October 8th, 2020, 11:14 am I take the position that science is fundamentally objective.
Science is objective but some scientists are not, imo.

It seems to me that the science of evolution is rife with biased opinions. For example, I've encountered many scientists online who claim to "know" how evolution works, yet they can't prove that the theory of evolution describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record.
Claiming to "know" how an unproven (and unprovable) process works sounds like a nonsence to me.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Science aims to be objective. It is conducted by humans, so it's imperfectly objective. What is objectivity in the practical realm, but broad agreement between informed subjects?

Darwinian evolution, though, is very well understood. No field is comprehensively known, of course, but all scientific fields have seen extraordinary advances in the past thousand years. I have my own quibbles with evolutionary biology, in that there's too much focus on individual genetics and not enough study of the evolution of large group dynamics. Nor is there much consideration of the biosphere's evolution. Nor the evolution of Earth as a whole, which would include the geological/chemical evolution that preceded and facilitated biological evolution.

It seems that money and scientists' own subjectivity guides their study targets. However, the studies themselves tend to be conducted rigorously, logically and extremely intelligently. Sadly, the media often reports on studies without the same rigour, which unfairly tarnishes science's reputation.
Paradigmer
Posts: 91
Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Paradigmer »

TheAstronomer wrote: October 8th, 2020, 11:14 am I take the position that science is fundamentally objective. I don't think that scientists themselves are necessarily objective, but that science as a whole is objective. I also don't think that science necessarily arrives at the absolute truth, if such a term has any meaning at all. I make the claim, though, that science can reach objective truth.

Can anyone suggest some good arguments from both sides? I want to do this as "objectively" as I can.
Science is intended to be fundamentally objective, but as it is, the practices of mainstream science could never arrive at the absolute truth despite has been thriving in pragmatism. Its propositions could only be analytically true, which are subjected to its postulated objective reality.

Pragmatic theories of truth for pragmatism of scienctific persues do not entail objective truth, nonetheless such approach for science has true values that are necessary for applied science.
TheAstronomer wrote: October 8th, 2020, 11:14 am Could you also suggest some names of people to read, or of the various movements that have grown up on either side of this debate.
I have two relevant topics on this you might want to dig in:

Critical analysis of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

Logic and belief systems
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

TheAstronomer wrote: October 8th, 2020, 11:14 am I'm trying to come to terms with an argument I've been having with a friend of mine.

I take the position that science is fundamentally objective. I don't think that scientists themselves are necessarily objective, but that science as a whole is objective. I also don't think that science necessarily arrives at the absolute truth, if such a term has any meaning at all. I make the claim, though, that science can reach objective truth.

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.

Can anyone suggest some good arguments from both sides? I want to do this as "objectively" as I can.

Could you also suggest some names of people to read, or of the various movements that have grown up on either side of this debate. I'm familiar only with Foucault who said something akin to "all knowledge is power." Anything helpful would be great.
Astronomer!

Looks like you may no longer be on-board here, but I'll through my two pennies in the fray. Using the simple example of physics, science uses mathematical equations for many of its theories. There are some paradoxes though:

1. It still requires a subject to run the calcs.
2. The subject herself is naturally biased.
3. Math itself is considered an unchanging, unbiased truth.
4. In physics, math is used to describe/explain a world of change.
5. Math itself is an abstract metaphysical thing-in-itself (the design of a physical structure can be produced using abstract 'unseen' mathematical formulas in the mind).
6. Math has zero biological survival advantages.

One 'consistency' that's paradoxical in itself, is how time is understood mathematically. Time is metaphysical, math is metaphysical, yet time itself is an illusion (think general relativity, speed of light and so on). The perception of time is relative to the subject.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Forgot, arguably the most philosophically intriguing part of Math and Objectivity (paradox).

7. Like analytic propositions, Math in itself is a priori, and considered 'purely objective' (formal/modal logic). Bias generally does not change its truth value. Regardless of what we think about numbers, their truth remains same, unchanged. A world of unchanging truths, in a world of change.

Yet, there is no concrete 'object' in which itself refers to; only manifestations. Much like time and gravity itself, particles (objects) are required for observation of its phenomena.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7933
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by LuckyR »

Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: August 20th, 2022, 2:33 am Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.
This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! 😉 I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7933
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by LuckyR »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 7:03 am
LuckyR wrote: August 20th, 2022, 2:33 am Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.
This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! 😉 I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).
I guess I don't view the inductive nature of science as a shortcoming, since the vast majority of problems science addresses don't lend themselves to being solved deductively.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Scientists do their best, and their best is impressive.

It still amazes me how they can send a craft out into the expanses of space, which will arrive at a point exactly in time, and at exactly the right speed, to fall into orbit around some tiny entity hurtling along at many kilometres per second.

Their detailed forensic analyses of fossil evidence makes Sherlock Holmes look like Scooby Doo and Shaggy.

Still, mistakes will happen now and again.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: August 20th, 2022, 2:33 am Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 7:03 am This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! 😉 I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).
LuckyR wrote: August 20th, 2022, 1:35 pm I guess I don't view the inductive nature of science as a shortcoming, since the vast majority of problems science addresses don't lend themselves to being solved deductively.
Yes, that's the core truth. Science is not objective, in the sense that it is not based on solid and unassailable logical (and deductive) argument. It's an inductive discipline. You initially sought to explain science's lack of objectivity with the trivial — relatively speaking — observation that scientists, being human, can make simple mistakes. This seeks to minimise the problem. It's not about human fallibility, it's about humanity's lack of access to objectivity, and 'that which actually is, mind-independently'. And that is not trivial.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sy Borg wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:52 pm Scientists do their best, and their best is impressive.

...

Still, mistakes will happen now and again.
As I just wrote to LuckyR, it is not the (trivial) observation that human scientists sometimes make mistakes that explains science's lack of objectivity. It is a much more fundamental reason than that. But I agree that our scientists' "best" is impressive; science has proved itself over many centuries. But that doesn't mean it has no shortcomings, or that such shortcomings can (or should) be dismissed.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7933
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by LuckyR »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 21st, 2022, 9:39 am
LuckyR wrote: August 20th, 2022, 2:33 am Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 7:03 am This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! 😉 I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).
LuckyR wrote: August 20th, 2022, 1:35 pm I guess I don't view the inductive nature of science as a shortcoming, since the vast majority of problems science addresses don't lend themselves to being solved deductively.
Yes, that's the core truth. Science is not objective, in the sense that it is not based on solid and unassailable logical (and deductive) argument. It's an inductive discipline. You initially sought to explain science's lack of objectivity with the trivial — relatively speaking — observation that scientists, being human, can make simple mistakes. This seeks to minimise the problem. It's not about human fallibility, it's about humanity's lack of access to objectivity, and 'that which actually is, mind-independently'. And that is not trivial.
But if there isn't any alternative your observations aren't a description of a weakness, it's just a description.
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021