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
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Greta wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:59 pm Why do you think science is less objective than philosophy? What do you see as the difference?
My guess is that he feels that way because he is more interested in philosophy than science. But I don't think that the serious study of the history of philosophy would support that opinion. In the case of science, there are standards for determining what counts as true and what counts as false. In philosophy, there are no such standards. This is why the most basic questions are invariably controversial in philosophy. As I explained this in another thread, I will simply quote myself rather than retype it:
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 1st, 2020, 11:43 am
Ephrium wrote: March 30th, 2018, 11:14 am I have heard a lot about Kant and am a philosophy undergraduate. However, even after researching many areas, these scholastic papers do not seem to tell me whether Kant is correct or wholesale wrong. For instance even Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy just state what Kant’s viewpoint is

...[links omitted because this site will not let me post links]

They do not state whether it is rubbish or what

In contrast, other topics such as Causation in philosophy or Justified True Belief have more definite answers whether they are “right or wrong”

Now how shall I take Kant’s theory

The reason for that is really quite simple. Most things in philosophy are controversial and there is very little in the way of consensus. Consequently, some philosophy professors regard Kant as being horribly wrong, and others regard him as the greatest philosopher ever. And then, of course, there are opinions in between. There is no standard criteria for deciding which philosophers are correct and which are not, unlike, say, physicists, where empirical testing is used to determine which theories are correct and which do not match reality. As a consequence of this, there are many resources which attempt to give an "objective" perspective on various philosophers, rather than expressing an opinion on whether the philosopher in question is right or wrong about the things they state.

And, of course, before judging whether something is correct or incorrect, one must first understand what, if anything, is being claimed. So that tends to be what such sources attempt to help one with, though obviously some are better than others at such things, and, however much one might try to be objective, most people do have an opinion about the things they know about what various philosophers claim.

In the case of Kant, he is too important to the history of philosophy to ignore, so if you are going to major in philosophy, you should study him, even if you think he is utter crap. You will also want to study Plato and Aristotle and Hume for the same reason, that they are all very highly regarded by a significant number of people, and they have all been extremely influential in the history of philosophy. So someone majoring in philosophy should try to understand the main ideas of all of those philosophers, even though, of course, at least three of them must be wrong in a big way about something, since they all contradict each other.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

Greta wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:59 pm Why do you think science is less objective than philosophy? What do you see as the difference?
Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am But the latter are effectively laughable if taken too seriously.
They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
They have to stick to the previously defined parameters, or limits of their fields.
:)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 10th, 2020, 9:18 pm
Greta wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:59 pm Why do you think science is less objective than philosophy? What do you see as the difference?
My guess is that he feels that way because he is more interested in philosophy than science. But I don't think that the serious study of the history of philosophy would support that opinion.
I would say it's a lot more hit-or-miss than science. However, when it comes to trying to understand subjective experience, I think science needs philosophy to round out the picture.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:You have that wrong. It should be:
Still, if anyone tries to be objective, it's philosophers and, to a lesser extent, scientists and judges.
But the latter are effectively laughable if taken too seriously.
They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
They have to stick to the previously defined parameters, or limits of their fields.
What exactly would constitute "being taken too seriously"? What activities does taking science too seriously involve doing?

In what sense does being limited to a particular field limit objectivity?
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 »

Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
Neither do any of us, if we insist on using the term "objective" without clarifying what we mean by it. Correspondence with that which actually is? Or just vaguely impartial? We all know the term can be used in these different ways. Using it without clarification is to deliberately mislead or deceive, maybe intended to derail the discussion in progress...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 11th, 2020, 8:46 am Neither do any of us, if we insist on using the term "objective" without clarifying what we mean by it. Correspondence with that which actually is? Or just vaguely impartial? We all know the term can be used in these different ways. Using it without clarification is to deliberately mislead or deceive, maybe intended to derail the discussion in progress...?
Well, I am not derailing. But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.

Scientists that do not consider the definitions in which they work are just not so serious.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

Steve3007 wrote: October 11th, 2020, 7:10 am What exactly would constitute "being taken too seriously"? What activities does taking science too seriously involve doing?

In what sense does being limited to a particular field limit objectivity?
See the above Steve :)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.
Likelihood, as opposed to what? Certainty? Was there a time when science (or anything else) produced certainty?

Could you give an example of something you regard as a "parameter of the system" in the context you're talking about here?
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

Steve3007 wrote: October 11th, 2020, 12:37 pm
Arjen wrote:But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.
Likelihood, as opposed to what? Certainty? Was there a time when science (or anything else) produced certainty?

Could you give an example of something you regard as a "parameter of the system" in the context you're talking about here?
Likelihood comes from empiricism: I observe 98% of the times X, 2 % of the time Y.
Rationalism tries to work out HOW or WHY that happens.

Transcendental is when both line up ;)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Count Lucanor »

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.
The actual question seems to be: "is the knowledge pursued by science objective?", in other words, are its truths mind-independent truths? Generally speaking, science is systematized knowledge and it seeks for universal agreement through reliable methodical research, so definitely, objectivity is at the front of science's aims. Even though every human endeavor is subject to the cognitive bias of human interests, the whole point of science is to introduce controls in its research methods that guarantee those bias are filtered out. Peer review, replication and isolation of variables are some of those controls. That does not eliminate altogether human interest from science, nor it eliminates its paradigmatic philosophical foundations, but it doesn't make science subjective, it simply makes possible the coexistence of objectivity and human interests in the practice of science. The key, again, is method.

Now, within scientific practices, not all fields have the same objects of study and the same methods. The knowledge produced by natural science related to inanimate objects within predetermined systems tends to be easier to predict and control, therefore the objectivity of such knowledge is almost always guaranteed, unlike the science related to complex biological systems, especially human society. The openness and complexities of those systems make universal agreement harder to achieve, philosophical perspectives and human interests add more burdens to the search of objectivity there. Harder, but not impossible.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
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 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 11th, 2020, 8:46 am Neither do any of us, if we insist on using the term "objective" without clarifying what we mean by it. Correspondence with that which actually is? Or just vaguely impartial? We all know the term can be used in these different ways. Using it without clarification is to deliberately mislead or deceive, maybe intended to derail the discussion in progress...?
Arjen wrote: October 11th, 2020, 10:16 am Well, I am not derailing. But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.

Scientists that do not consider the definitions in which they work are just not so serious.
Oddly, in replying to me you don't say what you mean when you use the misleading term "objective" in this discussion. But that was the point you were replying to...? 🤔
Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
So how are you using this contentious term?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Steve3007 »

Steve3007 wrote:Likelihood, as opposed to what? Certainty?
Arjen wrote:Likelihood comes from empiricism: I observe 98% of the times X, 2 % of the time Y.
So likelihood as opposed to certainty?
Rationalism tries to work out HOW or WHY that happens.
Could you give me an example of what you refer to as "rationalism" doing this?
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:21 am Oddly, in replying to me you don't say what you mean when you use the misleading term "objective" in this discussion. But that was the point you were replying to...? 🤔
That's because likelyhood comes from subjectivty. It has nothing to do with objectivity, not even the subjectively objective kind. It is just a collection of subjectives.
Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
So how are you using this contentious term?
Because that is the point I was making.

Does this clarify?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

Steve3007 wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:27 am So likelihood as opposed to certainty?
Yes, I think this is a subversion of science somehow. Perhaps on purpose. If I could, I would pin it on the CCP, sadly, I can't!
:lol:
Could you give me an example of what you refer to as "rationalism" doing this?
Rousseau famously uses the log in the water. We observe a corner in the log, yet in reality the log is straight. So, we worked out that the light is refracted on the different medium (water), which lead to the defining of the refraction index. Instead of using the observation just like that, someone made multiple and worked out the relation. Rousseau uses that as an explanation of rationalism.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:Yes, I think this is a subversion of science somehow. Perhaps on purpose.
OK, So when you said this:
...scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood...
I guess you meant that scientists in the olden days produced certainties?
If I could, I would pin it on the CCP, sadly, I can't!
Yes, in my experience a lot of people here have a particular single issue that they mostly want to discuss. In your case it seems to me the thesis that western mainstream media deliberately don't print stories about bad stuff done by the Chinese Communist Party. But I like to see a bit of good healthy self-mockery! :-)
Rousseau famously uses the log in the water. We observe a corner in the log, yet in reality the log is straight. So, we worked out that the light is refracted on the different medium (water), which lead to the defining of the refraction index. Instead of using the observation just like that, someone made multiple and worked out the relation. Rousseau uses that as an explanation of rationalism.
That's one example of the process of taking a set of individual observations and finding the patterns in them - the things that they all share - to come up with a proposed objective reality. Rousseau, I guess, picks that as a nice clear example, but any set of individual observations would do. You could, for example, use the example of a circular coin seen at an angle. (I think Russell uses that example.)

So you think modern scientists don't do things like that anymore? If so, that would be a strange view to take. Doing things like that is the very definition of what science does.
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