Is Science Objective?

[Sy Borg]

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.

Human error is not so trivial. It includes anthropocentrism and other epistemological issues.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

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.

A "weakness"? I didn't expect that. It sounds like you're viewing this as a confrontation, as though I'm attacking science — or more precisely, objectivity — and you're defending it? Weakness and strength, and other such (negatively) judgemental terms, could not have been farther from my thoughts. I hope I have read too much into your choice of words, and that I have misunderstood...?

There is no fault here. It is just that humans have no direct access to 'objective' knowledge, other than that Objective Reality exists. This is not a weakness, any more than the sky seeming blue to human eyes is a weakness. It just is; no judgement. Yes, it's just a "description".

But it isn't a trivial description, or distinction. The problem I describe is not about simple human error, it concerns a fundamental aspect of the universe that we cannot avoid or rise above. There is a barrier here that humans cannot pass. To consider this as though it was based on human error — an occasional misreading of measuring equipment, or the like — devalues and trivialises my point.

[Sy Borg]

Kantianism v modernism?

[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.

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.

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.

A "weakness"? I didn't expect that. It sounds like you're viewing this as a confrontation, as though I'm attacking science — or more precisely, objectivity — and you're defending it? Weakness and strength, and other such (negatively) judgemental terms, could not have been farther from my thoughts. I hope I have read too much into your choice of words, and that I have misunderstood...?

There is no fault here. It is just that humans have no direct access to 'objective' knowledge, other than that Objective Reality exists. This is not a weakness, any more than the sky seeming blue to human eyes is a weakness. It just is; no judgement. Yes, it's just a "description".

But it isn't a trivial description, or distinction. The problem I describe is not about simple human error, it concerns a fundamental aspect of the universe that we cannot avoid or rise above. There is a barrier here that humans cannot pass. To consider this as though it was based on human error — an occasional misreading of measuring equipment, or the like — devalues and trivialises my point.

Well, you brought up the term "shortcoming", so I communicated in kind with "weakness", only in the context of saying it ISN'T a weakness, so your first paragraph is losing me.

As to the error involved, it isn't with what science is (inductive reasoning), it is the erroneous assumption that science is deductive, when it never was.

[Pattern-chaser]

As to the error involved, it isn't with what science is (inductive reasoning), it is the erroneous assumption that science is deductive, when it never was.

Ah. Agreed.

[value]

My friend takes a different position. He claims that science cannot be objective as there is always inherent bias.

Science is dogmatic and is validated only by utilitarian 'success'.

Philosophy is capable of fundamentally transcending dogma while science can only operate autonomously based on a dogma (its assumption of uniformitarianism). That is a profound difference.

The nature of the problem is described by William James:

"Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons."

Philosophy is about good, while science is a method invented by philosophy to acquire knowledge from truth, which is a belief-based concept (dogma).

An example reasoning by a user on this forum, that highlights the fundamental dogmatic assumption that underlays the idea of scientific facts:

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My answer: "Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens to the infinite monkey theorem. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'."

Evidence:
Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18367

The error is found here:

Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Facts in no way depend on any declarations or naming.

It is philosophy that fundamentally underlays facts. The belief that the facts of science are valid without philosophy is a dogmatic mistake.

Science therefore, is not objective from a fundamental philosophical perspective. Science is dogmatic and the truth of science is fundamentally based on belief.

[value]

The evolution of science as described by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) in 1886 is illustrative of the dogmatic foundation of science.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

Science has attempted to rid itself of philosophy and morality and to become the master of itself, i.e. to 'advance immorally' for the the greater good of science.

It is a fundamental dogmatic mistake to believe that science can operate autonomously without philosophy. Science therefore, must not be viewed as objective, despite all the success it can achieve.

[HJCarden]

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.

Other contextual elements aside, by far the most important incident is that of time. Scientific revolutions occur as evidence piles up that does not agree with the current paradigm; see Copernicus. All scientists are limited by a few assumptions that we are all forced to accept. Quickly examine your own scientific assumptions. Most people believe that we live in a physical world that bears some relation to How Things Actually Are. The scientific method rests on this principle that we can use the world to tell us about the world. Somewhat intellectually immature when laid bare that way. Perhaps that is the next great leap in science will be, in part, an admission of the foley of this venture.

Objectivity is not a great measure therefore of science. Its measure should be its utility. Does this improve my life in a physical manner? Does this lead me closer to Truth? This is how science should be evaluated, ever humble that it all might be shown to be incorrect in the next revolution.

[popeye1945]

Is Science Objective?

Nothing is objective but the source of the energy that is interpreted by biological reactive organisms. The which alters one's biology becomes a subjective experience, a subjective meaning, a subjective object. The meanings of the things are the property of a conscious subject/biology. The subject biology then bestows what it experiences to the physical world, in the belief that what is apparent to the subject, is what is real.

[Xenophon]

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.

Other contextual elements aside, by far the most important incident is that of time. Scientific revolutions occur as evidence piles up that does not agree with the current paradigm; see Copernicus. All scientists are limited by a few assumptions that we are all forced to accept. Quickly examine your own scientific assumptions. Most people believe that we live in a physical world that bears some relation to How Things Actually Are. The scientific method rests on this principle that we can use the world to tell us about the world. Somewhat intellectually immature when laid bare that way. Perhaps that is the next great leap in science will be, in part, an admission of the foley of this venture.

Objectivity is not a great measure therefore of science. Its measure should be its utility. Does this improve my life in a physical manner? Does this lead me closer to Truth? This is how science should be evaluated, ever humble that it all might be shown to be incorrect in the next revolution.

"How Things Actually Are"? You mean "Ding an sich" and all that? And I believe in that? I mean, I know if I drink Drano I'll die painfully, because science tells me so. It's "intellectually immature" to believe that? Anyway, when you need a break from punching out the ol' straw man you can answer. Why is it intellectually immature to believe that "If X then Y" is a real fact about the world?

[popeye1945]

A collective is always more likely to be objective than the individual, which might be due to scattered shattered egos--lol!!

[HJCarden]

"How Things Actually Are"? You mean "Ding an sich" and all that? And I believe in that? I mean, I know if I drink Drano I'll die painfully, because science tells me so. It's "intellectually immature" to believe that? Anyway, when you need a break from punching out the ol' straw man you can answer. Why is it intellectually immature to believe that "If X then Y" is a real fact about the world?

All "science" is set to certain unprovable axioms. When these axioms are disproven, the basis for all new knowledge changes until better axioms are found. This is why stating things as "fact" is problematic. You're using a simple causal chain as an example of science. Knowing that Drano will kill you might not necessarily be a fact that you can prove about the world. You might be able to identify lethal doses of certain toxic chemicals or the ways in which the solution will affect the human body, but as you continue to ask questions about what causes these reactions, you'll eventually find certain things that must be taken on faith. Therefore, having full believing in these "real science facts!" is indeed somewhat foolish, considering that every generation of thinkers must be standing on the shoulders of giants to see as far as they do.

[Count Lucanor]

It is a fundamental dogmatic mistake to believe that science can operate autonomously without philosophy. Science therefore, must not be viewed as objective, despite all the success it can achieve.

I can agree on the first part of the statement, but the second one implies that philosophy is, by its own nature, not objective. That is obviously wrong.

[value]

It is a fundamental dogmatic mistake to believe that science can operate autonomously without philosophy. Science therefore, must not be viewed as objective, despite all the success it can achieve.

I can agree on the first part of the statement, but the second one implies that philosophy is, by its own nature, not objective. That is obviously wrong.

Philosophy can transcend the declaration of objectivity by its own nature, which is of a higher value than a declaration of being objective.

What is deemed accurate and true, is, in the words of William James that I cited before, merely good in the way of belief.

"Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons."

Philosophy can make a case for what is good, and that capability by itself is evidence of something that is fundamental in nature, and thus evidence that philosophy is fundamentally capable of transcending dogma, while science cannot do the same because science merely follows rules provided for by philosophy, which is fundamentally dogmatic of nature because it is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism that is justified only by utility (the success of science).

A critique on philosophy by a scientist on the Naked Science forum of University of Cambridge is illustrative:

"Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else."

I joined that forum in March 2019 to start a topic about philosophical concerns about GMO. Dozens of real scientists joined in the discussion, all being very nice in general, but with a shared fundamental aversion of philosophy. They made an authentic case against philosophy, and for science as something higher and better.

Some examples on that forum:

"Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?"

"You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation."

"Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it."

"Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding."

"Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy."

Very insightful.

My argument:

The assumed objectivity of science cannot stand on its own. One may maintain a position as being "humble in the face of observation", as a scientist described it in one of the above quotes, but that doesn't change the fact that the assumption of uniformitarianism has no justification other than utility, which is a dogma.

Objectivity from an utilitarian sense, in science, has a different meaning from real philosophical objectivity (something being true independent of mind). The latter is simply not applicable in science, and also not in philosophy, but philosophy is fundamentally capable of transcending the concept objectivity for what is good. By philosophy's capacity to question the questioning as it were, which results in Aristotle's eudaimonia or the intellectual (philosophical) pursuit of good.

[Count Lucanor]

It is a fundamental dogmatic mistake to believe that science can operate autonomously without philosophy. Science therefore, must not be viewed as objective, despite all the success it can achieve.

I can agree on the first part of the statement, but the second one implies that philosophy is, by its own nature, not objective. That is obviously wrong.

Philosophy can transcend the declaration of objectivity by its own nature, which is of a higher value than a declaration of being objective.

What is deemed accurate and true, is, in the words of William James that I cited before, merely good in the way of belief.

"Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons."

Philosophy can make a case for what is good, and that capability by itself is evidence of something that is fundamental in nature, and thus evidence that philosophy is fundamentally capable of transcending dogma, while science cannot do the same because science merely follows rules provided for by philosophy, which is fundamentally dogmatic of nature because it is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism that is justified only by utility (the success of science).

I see that what Mr. James believes that his opinion on what truth is applies only on himself and not necessarily on anyone else, otherwise that would make his proposition objectively true, defeating the notion that philosophy is subjective. Do you agree with him?