Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[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.

[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.

[LuckyR]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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".

[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.

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

[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.

[Sculptor1]

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.

[Arjen]

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.

[Sy Borg]

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