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
TheAstronomer
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: October 8th, 2020, 10:50 am

Is Science Objective?

Post by TheAstronomer »

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.
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 »

You might want to start with a thread here called "The Rules of the Game" (including the article at the link in the opening post):

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16903

Of course, you will be disappointed with it. But that does not mean that you should not read it.

For what it is worth (which is not much, since, to you, I am just a random person online), I agree with you.

Perhaps, though, I can help you in your argument. Ask your friend what it would mean for something to be objective. Does he agree that if someone jumps off a cliff, without some device, and in the absence of a high wind, etc., that person will fall? Is that an objective fact? If not, what is it?

What does science say about that?

Or (and this might have more emotive force, though not more rational weight, if one will permit such a metaphor), does your friend believe that it is an objective fact that he is a man rather than something else? If so, how does he make that determination? He is not in a vacuum, and has social, political, and economic baggage, and he is in an historical context, so does that mean that his assessment that he is a man is a mere subjective opinion, no better than any other opinion on the subject? And if one opinion were better than another, what would make it better?

My guess is (and obviously this must be based on other people rather than your friend) that your friend is not consistent on his affirmations. I think pressing such things is the way to show, to you if not to him (because many people are inconsistent and never accept that fact), that he most likely does not have a consistent story that he is telling.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by LuckyR »

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.
Science is as objective as anything can be. In other words, if you have a continuum from purely subjective on one side to purely objective on the other, your friend is correct that science is not purely objective. However you are correct that from a relative perspective nothing else is more objective than science.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Arjen »

TheAstronomer

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
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Steve3007 »

If it doesn't aspire to be objective then it's not science. The whole point of science is to try to filter from individual observations truths that are independent of those individual observations - the patterns that connect the observations and which we think of as indicative of a real world which is sometimes given the name "Nature". Whether it succeeds in that aspiration isn't a question with a single, universal answer. Individual activities that are labelled "scientific" would have to be considered.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

So the question effectively becomes whether human beings are capable of objectivity, or whether our species loyalty, senses and brain configuration introduce skews that we don't perceive.

Still, if anyone tries to be objective, it's scientists and, to a lesser extent, philosophers and judges.
User avatar
TheAstronomer
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: October 8th, 2020, 10:50 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by TheAstronomer »

Jack D. Ripper, I agree with your approach to questioning the existence of absolute truths and to use that as a departure for questioning his assumptions. I'll give it a go. LuckyR, I absolutely agree, nothing else is more objective than science, though it is imperfect. Likewise, Steve3007 puts it well. The job of science is to filter observations and to construct as objective as possible an explanation. Arjen, I can see your point about the difference between the common and the actual interpretation of objectivity, but you also agree that science is at least trying to be objective. Greta, I do think, using the language of mathematics, that physics can reach beyond our skewed perceptions, which I concede do indeed exist.

Does anyone think that science is NOT objective? Or that science is culturally biased?
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 »

A lot of what science studies is objective. However, the study itself, as a set of human activities (as well as the applications as a set of human activities, etc.), can't be objective. Humans do things subjectively. This doesn't undermine the value of anything. It's just a truism that we're subjects, and as subjects, what we do is "of subjects." What we do can't be independent of us.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

The notion of a "professional" is someone who takes their job and responsibilities seriously. The responsibility of science is to provide us with objective information about us and the world we live in. A scientist must look for and exclude any bias or subjectivity in their own work and the work of their colleagues. Science employs specific methods and standards designed to insure objectivity. The scientist who fails to do this would be considered unprofessional and would lose their credibility in their claim to the title of "scientist".
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 »

People can't actually do anything without bias or subjectivity, though.

The notion of "doing something without bias" actually amounts to "doing something with some of the biases that I agree with."

"Scientists should do something without bias" is itself a bias. Any normative will be. Any belief, including background beliefs about what's going on--for example, a background belief that scientists are observing an external, objective world--are also biases. (And a background belief that scientists are NOT observing an external, objective world would just as well be a bias.) Belief is a bias, and we can do nothing--at least nothing intentional--without belief.
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 »

TheAstronomer wrote: October 8th, 2020, 11:14 am I take the position that science is fundamentally objective. [...] My friend takes a different position. He claims that science cannot be objective as there is always inherent bias. [...]
This discussion, and those very like it, occur regularly on philosophy forums. And they can be fun, but they usually fail for reasons of word-definition. You might think your question is simple and precise, but it isn't. It's the meaning of "objective" that is the main issue.

"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.

But your friend points out that scientists (as opposed to science) are intrinsically biased, and that's difficult to argue with. Scientists are human, and humans cannot help but be biased. I suspect that this argument, as you intend it (I'm guessing!), splits between your friend and yourself. You're both part-right. But I pass this back to you: have I correctly understood the nature of the discussion you want to have? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
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 »

Pattern-chaser brings up an excellent point. You might want to examine the definitions of your terms, to see how your friend is using the terms "objective" and "subjective", and compare with what you mean by them. Looking at a couple of dictionaries may also be of service in this, though you will want to ask your friend what, exactly, he means by the terms. It is entirely possible that they two of you are simply using your terms differently from each other. Of course, you could also be having a substantive disagreement instead of merely a linguistic one, but one must examine what each of you mean by the terms to find out which it is.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Science Objective?

Post by Sculptor1 »

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.
No.
Science is not objective.
Science is at all times guided by human interest. These interests can range from practical, economic, technical, and esoteric. Science is a means by which humans unpack the musteries of the universe to serve their own ends. So in itself, science is not objective in that sense.

However, since the object of its study does not work by viewing the world purely subjectively, and that the METHOD of science required strict adherence to objective method, its study and the evidence it gathers is inherently objective, whilst the aims and purposes of science remain partial, goal oriented and therefore non-objective in a wider sense.

It is no surprise that medical science has managed to uncover the causes of mainly human diseases whilst taking little interest in the diseases of animals and plants that do not serve humanity.
It is no surpise that the machines and teachnical achivements of science are mostly directed at finding ways to enrich the activities of humans be that in killing, eating, housing, and transportation, whilst leaving the rest of the world an ecological disaster area with mass extinctions.
Even the move to green politics is so vested in the interests of humans that all climate science is largely concerned with the impact on the human species.
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 9th, 2020, 6:07 am Still, if anyone tries to be objective, it's scientists and, to a lesser extent, philosophers and judges.
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.
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 »

Why do you think science is less objective than philosophy? What do you see as the difference?
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