Not so. There is no "guesswork" whatsoever to deductive logic. Deductive logic is as objective and straightforward as mathematics.LuckyR wrote:..."logic" or more accurately "guesswork" is very prone to errors…
Is Science Objective?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is Science Objective?
Well, experience doesn't lie. Experiments commonly disprove logically derived hypotheses, so either your definition of deductive logic is so broad so as to be useless, or you are using it inappropriately.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
Can you give a specific example where an experiment's result didn't follow the logic?LuckyR wrote:Well, experience doesn't lie. Experiments commonly disprove logically derived hypotheses...
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is Science Objective?
Well, you do bring up (tangentially) the separate issue that positive (confirmatory) research findings are much, much easier to get published in scientific journals than negative (nonconfirmatory) research. This is called publication bias and is currently considered a flaw or weakness in the modern scientific community. Now to your point, while negative studies are somewhat uncommonly found in high profile journals (as explained above) don't confuse that with the reality that numerous (admittedly unpublished) research studies do not support their hypotheses.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
Note: science can never contradict (overrule) sound deductive logic. For example, if something is logically impossible, then no amount of science can make the impossible, suddenly possible.
Logic trumps Science.
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Science Objective?
Well yes, I suppose so. But, when we look really carefully, we can sometimes see that our judgement of something as "impossible" or "possible" was mistaken, or that we misunderstood, perhaps because our understanding was incomplete. I think the best we can do in this arena is to say that something is impossible given our understanding of it, which may be wrong, and is definitely incomplete.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Science Objective?
This is a very unusual use of the word "objective", especially on a philosophy forum. You seem to be equating objectivity with subjectivity, or perhaps claiming that objectivity is subjective? I'm confused. [This isn't unusual. ]
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
Well, since Xenophanes introduced his one and only, unimaginable Supergod, and a one and only objective unknowable (only approximate) reality saw the daylight in ancient Greece (Plato's mathematical heaven), this idea got a firm grip in western thinking. But the idea can be criticized. Why should there be one such story? Why can't they live side by side? There are as many objective realities as there are creatures. You can of course call this another objective reality, but its different from an objective objective reality, if you know what I mean.
"I'm confused. [This isn't unusual.]"
Haha! We all are here!
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Science Objective?
Pattern-chaser wrote:This is a very unusual use of the word "objective", especially on a philosophy forum. You seem to be equating objectivity with subjectivity, or perhaps claiming that objectivity is subjective?
OK, so we have been talking at cross-purposes. By "objective", you mean what I would mean if I wrote "subjective". You aren't referring to anything absolute, but only to your own perspective. That's OK, but you have to realise that's not what most people mean when they write "objective" in a post to a philosophy forum!Raymond wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2022, 11:24 am Well, since Xenophanes introduced his one and only, unimaginable Supergod, and a one and only objective unknowable (only approximate) reality saw the daylight in ancient Greece (Plato's mathematical heaven), this idea got a firm grip in western thinking. But the idea can be criticized. Why should there be one such story? Why can't they live side by side? There are as many objective realities as there are creatures. You can of course call this another objective reality, but its different from an objective objective reality, if you know what I mean.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
Hi! My laptop is dead and needs a lap up badly (if still possible, because she's over six years old and all data in it might possible be lost...), so I can't quote as supposed to (except the whole comment, which can be rather cofusing).So I quote like this, hoping you will notice.
I refer to one absolute truth also. The same for everyone. But I don't think there is only one such truth. I know this sounds paradoxically. As said, one truth is the other's fairytale, one's reason the other's insanity, and one's justice can be other's way of hel.
So the objective truth of Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene") is a different reality than the view that all creatures act out the lives of the gods. Though Dawkins view is just one interpretation of evolution, like there are various interpretations of Christianity. His view is based on the dogma of molecular biology, which is an unproven assumption, and the alternative is Lamarckian evolution. You can see "just" evolution as a cause of life, but does it render meaning? For evolutionists maybe. One can deny evolution altogether. In my absolute truth it exists but as a means only, not as a process in a universe that just exists. The laws of physics are too stupid to create themselves.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Science Objective?
Of course there is more than one such 'truth'. No-one has suggested otherwise. But if a particular truth is "absolute", "the same for everyone", then it is universal - not just one person's opinion. I will not point out this obvious truth again. I've done so enough already. I'm done here. Take care.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm
Re: Is Science Objective?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Is Science Objective?
But recently I have been studying the methods of epidemiology in relation to dietary advice and have found the conclusions hoplessly wrong , biased and partisan, especially where food companies such as the sugar association, Coca-Cola and others pushing sugar are co-funders in the process.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Is Science Objective?
eg on U tubeSculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2022, 12:35 pm Good science is objective.
But recently I have been studying the methods of epidemiology in relation to dietary advice and have found the conclusions hoplessly wrong , biased and partisan, especially where food companies such as the sugar association, Coca-Cola and others pushing sugar are co-funders in the process.
Nina Teicholz - 'Red Meat and Health'
402,726 views25 Mar 2018
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023