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
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, 9:12 am 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! :-)
I am trying to come to terms with this happenning. My wife being from Hong Kong, I see stuff that never makes the news in The Netherlands. For example the police torturing a democracy activist in the hospital, on libe camera! So, I alert the media (multiple). No one ran the story. I do read CCP propaganda concerning Hong Kong, which is what gave it away to me.

But yes, I am aware of doing that. It is for me and for you. I hope you know what I mean.

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
I think that many do this and that not doing this is rewarded. They also call tjis machine learning. Likelyhood. Pay attention. You will see it more and more.

The problem is that every coherent thought has a major and a minor premisse (and relates to another thought in some way). However, many observations used as a set doesn't form a major premisse. Likelihood is not an exact determining factor.
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:I think that many do this and that not doing this is rewarded. They also call tjis machine learning. Likelyhood. Pay attention. You will see it more and more.

The problem is that every coherent thought has a major and a minor premisse (and relates to another thought in some way). However, many observations used as a set doesn't form a major premisse. Likelihood is not an exact determining factor.
Finding patterns in individual observations in order to describe and predict a proposed objective reality is something that we all do every second of every day. Science also does it, but in a more formal and usually more quantitative way. So I don't really know what you're talking about when you say "not doing this is rewarded". And it's not obvious how you're going to suddenly bring in the subject of machine learning.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Steve3007 »

Although I think I might be able to spot how you're going to bring in the subject of the MSM's collusion with the CCP! :-)
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 12th, 2020, 8:42 am
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.
So "likelyhood" is nothing to do with statistics, but is merely intended as a subjective gesture in the vague direction of statistics and science?


Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
Arjen wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:42 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:21 am So how are you using this contentious term?
Because that is the point I was making.

Does this clarify?
No, it doesn't clarify at all. I asked what meaning you intended to convey by using the term "objective", and you answered a question that I didn't ask, in the style of a politician. Look:
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 9th, 2020, 11:23 am "Objective" can carry a number of different but related meanings:

[1]Correspondence with that which actually is.
[2]Correspondence with the apparent reality that our senses show to us.
[3]Possible 'in-between' values.
[4]Unbiased, impartial, external....

[1] complicates matters because it strays outside the bailiwick of science, and into metaphysics (are we brains-in-vats, etc). Unless this is your specific aim, you should avoid it.

[2] is probably the one you want? It describes quite well the aims and area-of-relevance of science.

[4] is the mildest definition, conveying an unemotional and impersonal flavour. If this is what you mean, you'd do best to make that clear.
So please clarify your position, and confirm the meaning you intend. That way, your readers know what you mean, and can respond accordingly. Thanks.
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 »

I think that the miscommunication is that statistics are just numbers confirming subjectivity. Somehow you think that is objective. Which is the problem with machine learning.

Are you familiar in logic?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
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 12th, 2020, 10:44 am
Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am They don't really have a clue about objectivity.
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 9th, 2020, 11:23 am "Objective" can carry a number of different but related meanings:

[1]Correspondence with that which actually is.
[2]Correspondence with the apparent reality that our senses show to us.
[3]Possible 'in-between' values.
[4]Unbiased, impartial, external....

[1] complicates matters because it strays outside the bailiwick of science, and into metaphysics (are we brains-in-vats, etc). Unless this is your specific aim, you should avoid it.

[2] is probably the one you want? It describes quite well the aims and area-of-relevance of science.

[4] is the mildest definition, conveying an unemotional and impersonal flavour. If this is what you mean, you'd do best to make that clear.
So please clarify your position, and confirm the meaning you intend. That way, your readers know what you mean, and can respond accordingly. Thanks.
Arjen wrote: October 12th, 2020, 11:22 am I think that the miscommunication is that statistics are just numbers confirming subjectivity. Somehow you think that is objective. Which is the problem with machine learning.

Are you familiar in logic?
You used the term "objectivity", so please confirm what you meant by it. Or don't you know? Did you use it simply as a throwaway term to enhance the authority of your words? I have asked a simple question 3 times now - please say what you meant!

[ As for familiarity with logic. Yes - I have Maths and Physics A-levels, a degree in Electronics and a working lifetime spent designing digital hardware and software. Oh, and a lifetime enthusiasm for philosophy. I have encountered logic once or twice. ]
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 »

Arjen wrote: October 9th, 2020, 3:30 am Pattern-chaser

I would like to explain something. There is a difference between the common subjective - objective distinction and the actual distinction:
1) The common objective - subjective distinction.
It is difficult to be objective. We take objectivity as not influenced by a personal bias. For example, calling water warm is subjective, because it has to do with my opinion on what warm and cold are. Calling that same water 25 degrees Celsius is then objective, because we can all agree to it. There are those suggesting that any description is inherently subject, because every individual has a perspective. It might be close to objective, but it is never perfect.
2) The actual objective - subjective distinction.
The terms refer to belonging to the subject (=observer) and belonging to the object (=observed). For example, we might assert that the leaves of a certain tree are green and everyone (except the colour blind) will agree. That makes it objectively true according to the common meaning of the word. BUT, the reality is that in those leaves are chloroplasts. So, an objective description might be that I observe chloroplasts and that we perceive them as green.
This makes that the assertion that any subject can, in no way, ever be completely objective. We are not the object. We can only perceive the object as subjects. Therefore, any and all things we think to know about those objects are subjective.


However, the value of science is the actual attempt to try to achieve knowledge about the object(s) under investigation. Science is attempting to find the actual facts occurring around us, although we can never know what they are exactly, in themselves. It still attempts to be as close as it gets to that. It can only be objective knowledge of a subject concerning a thing. And that is what is meant by objective knowledge in common speech.

I hope that helps you. Although it might complicate matters further. Apologies for that :)
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 »

pattern-chaser wrote:
[ As for familiarity with logic. Yes - I have Maths and Physics A-levels, a degree in Electronics and a working lifetime spent designing digital hardware and software. Oh, and a lifetime enthusiasm for philosophy. I have encountered logic once or twice. ]
That is not what I meant. Logic is also a s ript to encasulte the workings in the mind. I will divert and explain through set theory.


In a normal thought, we judge things and place observations in a relevant category, or set. For example Socrates would fall in the set of Humans, a boot would fall in the set of footwear and a cat falls both in the sets of pets and mammals (and more). Likelyhood based on multiple observations, does not have this quality. While observing an x number of humans, we can not conclude to a set. We can have an idea of these observations and we can go a long way to comparing new observations, but is not the same. All observations are elements of the set. They do not provide definitions of the set. This is the difference. Likelyhood does not provide the same certainty as a normal coherent human thought. Does this make sense, somehow?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: October 12th, 2020, 9:48 am Although I think I might be able to spot how you're going to bring in the subject of the MSM's collusion with the CCP! :-)
:-) :-)
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 12th, 2020, 1:08 pm @Pattern-chaser

I would like to explain something. There is a difference between the common subjective - objective distinction and the actual distinction:
1) The common objective - subjective distinction.
It is difficult to be objective. We take objectivity as not influenced by a personal bias. For example, calling water warm is subjective, because it has to do with my opinion on what warm and cold are. Calling that same water 25 degrees Celsius is then objective, because we can all agree to it. There are those suggesting that any description is inherently subject, because every individual has a perspective. It might be close to objective, but it is never perfect.
2) The actual objective - subjective distinction.
The terms refer to belonging to the subject (=observer) and belonging to the object (=observed). For example, we might assert that the leaves of a certain tree are green and everyone (except the colour blind) will agree. That makes it objectively true according to the common meaning of the word. BUT, the reality is that in those leaves are chloroplasts. So, an objective description might be that I observe chloroplasts and that we perceive them as green.
This makes that the assertion that any subject can, in no way, ever be completely objective. We are not the object. We can only perceive the object as subjects. Therefore, any and all things we think to know about those objects are subjective.


However, the value of science is the actual attempt to try to achieve knowledge about the object(s) under investigation. Science is attempting to find the actual facts occurring around us, although we can never know what they are exactly, in themselves. It still attempts to be as close as it gets to that. It can only be objective knowledge of a subject concerning a thing. And that is what is meant by objective knowledge in common speech.
My apologies. I didn't realise that "not influenced by personal bias" was intended as a definition of "objectivity". You seemed only to be digging into the literal meanings of object and subject, perhaps seeking some form of clarity. I missed the definition in the middle. 😊 So the definition you're using is about as mild as it can get.

So let's return to what you said many posts ago.
Greta wrote: October 9th, 2020, 6:07 am Still, if anyone tries to be objective, it's scientists and, to a lesser extent, philosophers and judges.
Arjen wrote: October 10th, 2020, 6:33 am 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.
So when you said "they don't really have a clue about objectivity", you referred simply and only to their inability (in your eyes) to understand (and perhaps avoid) personal bias. I think there is a little more depth to this discussion than that. 🤔 Still, at least now I can see what it is that you're saying. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Fellowmater
Posts: 77
Joined: November 23rd, 2017, 11:12 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Fellowmater »

It is not a question for answering yes and no: Concerning the exact natural sciences and most parts of mathematics, science really is objective - pure gold is gold and can be proofed to be nothing else. Concerning the humanities, you should expect that their results are more than individual ideas although they are based on subjective research. It seems to me to be common sense of the humanities to expect research results which are intersubjectively verifiable (using the same method in the same field for working on the same question, different researchers should come to fully comparable results).
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Fellowmater wrote: October 13th, 2020, 9:31 am Concerning the exact natural sciences and most parts of mathematics, science really is objective - pure gold is gold and can be proofed to be nothing else.
This seems like you're conflating science and what science makes claims about. Science makes claims about objective things, it deal with objective facts and so on, but those things, those facts are not the same thing as science. Science is a set of human activities, human ideologies, etc.
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 I didn't say that. That was the reason why I was mentioning scientists are not serious enough.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
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 13th, 2020, 2:13 pm @Pattern-chaser I didn't say that.
Then what did you say? I've asked and asked, and you have not responded. I'm trying to understand your points and your position, but I can't. Why not begin by saying what meaning you intend to convey when you use the word "objective"? We can proceed from there....
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 »

That (most) scientists are not serious enough. It shows in the complete absence of understanding what objectivity even means. And it is formalised in the adoption of likelihood into scientific research.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
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