Is Science Objective?

[Raymond]

That's why it's better and more humane to consider all realities, all stories, objective.

No! It's not your ideas that mislead, it's your insistence on using a meaningless term, that is nevertheless assumed by most to denote universality, and is not subject to any form of challenge or doubt. By using that term, you attempt to endow your opinions with the iron-clad correctness of Objectivity, which is invalid and misleading.

"it's your insistence on using a meaningless term,"

I don't think it's a misleading term. On the contrary. It provides connection with or roots in reality. One (or me, at least) wants their theories, models, cosmologies, theologies, ideas, etc. have some firm base outside and independent of us. Seems only natural to me. How would could you tell the difference between fantasy and fact if not so?

"By using that term, you attempt to endow your opinions with the iron-clad correctness of Objectivity, which is invalid and misleading."

I'm not sure where I am misleading. If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness. If I'm incorrect then I'm incorrect and shall I correct myself.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science is objective by definition. The things you investigate in the lab are objectively there. It are no hallucinations, though these can certainly be involved.

Philosophically, you can't demonstrate that the "things you investigate in the lab are objectively there", as there is no way to show that they correspond accurately to 'that which actually is'. You believe they do, but belief is not proof, but only an assumption. I'm not talking about hallucinations, but of the possibility (for example) that we are brains-in-vats, and that the things in the lab are the products of the bio-data stream fed to your en-vatted brain. I do not assert that this is the case, but only that it could be, and we can't show it isn't.

[Pattern-chaser]

One (or me, at least) wants their theories, models, cosmologies, theologies, ideas, etc. have some firm base outside and independent of us. Seems only natural to me. How would could you tell the difference between fantasy and fact if not so?

I think your final question hits the core of this discussion. We can't tell the difference between fantasy and fact, we can only assume or guess. We would all wish our beliefs to be firmly and incontrovertibly grounded in something undoubtable, but we don't always get our wishes.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness.

If there could be flaws in your beliefs, then they cannot be considered 'objective', for that which is objective cannot possibly be untrue.

[Raymond]

If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness.

If there could be flaws in your beliefs, then they cannot be considered 'objective', for that which is objective cannot possibly be untrue.

That can only be determined during scrutinizing. During that you have to consider your model as objectively true. I haven't seen flaws in my model yet. Or true arguments or experiments against it. Only irrational clinging to the standard (on physics forums).

[Raymond]

One (or me, at least) wants their theories, models, cosmologies, theologies, ideas, etc. have some firm base outside and independent of us. Seems only natural to me. How would could you tell the difference between fantasy and fact if not so?

I think your final question hits the core of this discussion. We can't tell the difference between fantasy and fact, we can only assume or guess. We would all wish our beliefs to be firmly and incontrovertibly grounded in something undoubtable, but we don't always get our wishes.

I agree that fact and fantasy, dream and reality, or fiction and non-fiction, science and science-fiction lay close to one another and can fuel one another. But one is capable to see if one is not dreaming, or to make the distinction. It was very nice talking to you. Almost "as usual"!. I have to take a walk with our dog. After that Im gonna sleep. Seeya later!

[Sculptor1]

If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness.

If there could be flaws in your beliefs, then they cannot be considered 'objective', for that which is objective cannot possibly be untrue.

That can only be determined during scrutinizing. During that you have to consider your model as objectively true. I haven't seen flaws in my model yet. Or true arguments or experiments against it. Only irrational clinging to the standard (on physics forums).

All belief is flawed by definition; it is accepting as true that which you wish to be true regardless of evidence and reason.

[Raymond]

If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness.

If there could be flaws in your beliefs, then they cannot be considered 'objective', for that which is objective cannot possibly be untrue.

That can only be determined during scrutinizing. During that you have to consider your model as objectively true. I haven't seen flaws in my model yet. Or true arguments or experiments against it. Only irrational clinging to the standard (on physics forums).

All belief is flawed by definition; it is accepting as true that which you wish to be true regardless of evidence and reason.

If there was evidence or reason against it I would change it.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness.

If there could be flaws in your beliefs, then they cannot be considered 'objective', for that which is objective cannot possibly be untrue.

During [scrutiny] you have to consider your model as objectively true.

No, you don't; during scrutiny, a normal and necessary part of serious consideration/thought, you have to consider your model. No confusing or misleading claims (regarding objectivity) are necessary, nor do they add anything to the meaning you are communicating here. Scrutiny should take place without pre-conditions or preconceptions, I think.

One (or me, at least) wants their theories, models, cosmologies, theologies, ideas, etc. have some firm base outside and independent of us. Seems only natural to me. How would could you tell the difference between fantasy and fact if not so?

I think your final question hits the core of this discussion. We can't tell the difference between fantasy and fact, we can only assume or guess. We would all wish our beliefs to be firmly and incontrovertibly grounded in something undoubtable, but we don't always get our wishes.

I agree that fact and fantasy, dream and reality, or fiction and non-fiction, science and science-fiction lay close to one another and can fuel one another. But one is capable to see if one is not dreaming, or to make the distinction.

Empirical evidence would suggest that, sometimes, the difference between dreaming and not-dreaming is not an easy distinction to make. How do we tell 'fact' from fantasy if that 'fact' cannot actually be shown to be, er, factual?

[Pattern-chaser]

All belief is flawed by definition; it is accepting as true that which you wish to be true regardless of evidence and reason.

As ever, Sculptor1 expresses this in a rather extreme form, but he is, in essence, quite right. Belief can (but does not always) involve ignoring evidence that contradicts our fondly-held beliefs. The downside to this is that pretty much all knowledge, is in actuality, belief. So belief is inescapable, much as we might like to be able to escape it.

[Raymond]

If I'm pointed to flaws in my theory, model, cosmology, etc. I won't stubbornly and cowardly hide behind my iron clad correctness.

If there could be flaws in your beliefs, then they cannot be considered 'objective', for that which is objective cannot possibly be untrue.

During [scrutiny] you have to consider your model as objectively true.

No, you don't"; during scrutiny, a normal and necessary part of serious consideration/thought, you have to consider your model. No confusing or misleading claims (regarding objectivity) are necessary, nor do they add anything to the meaning you are communicating here. Scrutiny should take place without pre-conditions or preconceptions, I think.

One (or me, at least) wants their theories, models, cosmologies, theologies, ideas, etc. have some firm base outside and independent of us. Seems only natural to me. How would could you tell the difference between fantasy and fact if not so?

I think your final question hits the core of this discussion. We can't tell the difference between fantasy and fact, we can only assume or guess. We would all wish our beliefs to be firmly and incontrovertibly grounded in something undoubtable, but we don't always get our wishes.

I agree that fact and fantasy, dream and reality, or fiction and non-fiction, science and science-fiction lay close to one another and can fuel one another. But one is capable to see if one is not dreaming, or to make the distinction.

Empirical evidence would suggest that, sometimes, the difference between dreaming and not-dreaming is not an easy distinction to make. How do we tell 'fact' from fantasy if that 'fact' cannot actually be shown to be, er, factual?

"No, you don't"

I do. If I criticize my own model I consider what I think as a truly existent stuff. Which can change during the critique. For example, the preons changed from massive to massless to avoid the mass paradox.

[Pattern-chaser]

For example, the preons changed from massive to massless to avoid the mass paradox.

This is a mistaken perception, which is perhaps colouring your thoughts? The preons did not change; our view of them and their properties changed, to fit our theories to observations of 'reality'. This is as it should be. We must always be careful to distinguish the map from the territory.

If I criticize my own model, I consider what I think of as truly existent stuff.

Yes! You consider what you think of as existent stuff. It may or may not be truly existent, which you correctly recognise and reflect in your words.

[Raymond]

For example, the preons changed from massive to massless to avoid the mass paradox.

This is a mistaken perception, which is perhaps colouring your thoughts? The preons did not change; our view of them and their properties changed, to fit our theories to observations of 'reality'. This is as it should be. We must always be careful to distinguish the map from the territory.

If I criticize my own model, I consider what I think of as truly existent stuff.

Yes! You consider what you think of as existent stuff. It may or may not be truly existent, which you correctly recognise and reflect in your words.

"This is as it should be. We must always be careful to distinguish the map from the territory"

The point is that you don't know what the territory is if you consider it as a never reachable objective truth. The preons are thought to have mass in the standard view. Leading to the paradox. Instead of rejecting them because of that you can consider them massless. Only then they come into existence and only retrospectively they can be said to have pulled through thought.

[Pattern-chaser]

We must always be careful to distinguish the map from the territory.

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.

[Sculptor1]

Belief is the reason killer.
Adherents of a Low fat high carb diet, and adherents of HFLC diet can take the same set of epidemiological data and conlclude for their own prejudice (belief).
Despite being thoroughly debunked and refuted, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study is still believed by millions of doctors and they are still peddling the wrong results which have led to an epidemic of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and heart disease.
Belief and the culture which allows faith to be normalised is very poor in changing when new evidence emerges.
The US is such a culture. My view is that being so religious allows this tyoe of thinking to thrive.