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

[Raymond]

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.

But how can we make a map if we don't know the territory first?

[Pattern-chaser]

But how can we make a map if we don't know the territory first?

If we knew the territory, why would we need a map?

[Raymond]

But how can we make a map if we don't know the territory first?

If we knew the territory, why would we need a map?

For the same reason we use maps in foreign countries.

[Buzzard3]

I take the position that science is fundamentally objective.

Science is objective but some scientists are not, imo.

It seems to me that the science of evolution is rife with biased opinions. For example, I've encountered many scientists online who claim to "know" how evolution works, yet they can't prove that the theory of evolution describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record.
Claiming to "know" how an unproven (and unprovable) process works sounds like a nonsence to me.

[Sy Borg]

Science aims to be objective. It is conducted by humans, so it's imperfectly objective. What is objectivity in the practical realm, but broad agreement between informed subjects?

Darwinian evolution, though, is very well understood. No field is comprehensively known, of course, but all scientific fields have seen extraordinary advances in the past thousand years. I have my own quibbles with evolutionary biology, in that there's too much focus on individual genetics and not enough study of the evolution of large group dynamics. Nor is there much consideration of the biosphere's evolution. Nor the evolution of Earth as a whole, which would include the geological/chemical evolution that preceded and facilitated biological evolution.

It seems that money and scientists' own subjectivity guides their study targets. However, the studies themselves tend to be conducted rigorously, logically and extremely intelligently. Sadly, the media often reports on studies without the same rigour, which unfairly tarnishes science's reputation.

[Paradigmer]

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.

Can anyone suggest some good arguments from both sides? I want to do this as "objectively" as I can.

Science is intended to be fundamentally objective, but as it is, the practices of mainstream science could never arrive at the absolute truth despite has been thriving in pragmatism. Its propositions could only be analytically true, which are subjected to its postulated objective reality.

Pragmatic theories of truth for pragmatism of scienctific persues do not entail objective truth, nonetheless such approach for science has true values that are necessary for applied science.

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 have two relevant topics on this you might want to dig in:

Critical analysis of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

Logic and belief systems

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

Astronomer!

Looks like you may no longer be on-board here, but I'll through my two pennies in the fray. Using the simple example of physics, science uses mathematical equations for many of its theories. There are some paradoxes though:

1. It still requires a subject to run the calcs.
2. The subject herself is naturally biased.
3. Math itself is considered an unchanging, unbiased truth.
4. In physics, math is used to describe/explain a world of change.
5. Math itself is an abstract metaphysical thing-in-itself (the design of a physical structure can be produced using abstract 'unseen' mathematical formulas in the mind).
6. Math has zero biological survival advantages.

One 'consistency' that's paradoxical in itself, is how time is understood mathematically. Time is metaphysical, math is metaphysical, yet time itself is an illusion (think general relativity, speed of light and so on). The perception of time is relative to the subject.

[3017Metaphysician]

Forgot, arguably the most philosophically intriguing part of Math and Objectivity (paradox).

7. Like analytic propositions, Math in itself is a priori, and considered 'purely objective' (formal/modal logic). Bias generally does not change its truth value. Regardless of what we think about numbers, their truth remains same, unchanged. A world of unchanging truths, in a world of change.

Yet, there is no concrete 'object' in which itself refers to; only manifestations. Much like time and gravity itself, particles (objects) are required for observation of its phenomena.

[LuckyR]

Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.

This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).

[LuckyR]

Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.

This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).

I guess I don't view the inductive nature of science as a shortcoming, since the vast majority of problems science addresses don't lend themselves to being solved deductively.

[Sy Borg]

Scientists do their best, and their best is impressive.

It still amazes me how they can send a craft out into the expanses of space, which will arrive at a point exactly in time, and at exactly the right speed, to fall into orbit around some tiny entity hurtling along at many kilometres per second.

Their detailed forensic analyses of fossil evidence makes Sherlock Holmes look like Scooby Doo and Shaggy.

Still, mistakes will happen now and again.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.

This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).

I guess I don't view the inductive nature of science as a shortcoming, since the vast majority of problems science addresses don't lend themselves to being solved deductively.

Yes, that's the core truth. Science is not objective, in the sense that it is not based on solid and unassailable logical (and deductive) argument. It's an inductive discipline. You initially sought to explain science's lack of objectivity with the trivial — relatively speaking — observation that scientists, being human, can make simple mistakes. This seeks to minimise the problem. It's not about human fallibility, it's about humanity's lack of access to objectivity, and 'that which actually is, mind-independently'. And that is not trivial.

[Pattern-chaser]

Scientists do their best, and their best is impressive.

...

Still, mistakes will happen now and again.

As I just wrote to LuckyR, it is not the (trivial) observation that human scientists sometimes make mistakes that explains science's lack of objectivity. It is a much more fundamental reason than that. But I agree that our scientists' "best" is impressive; science has proved itself over many centuries. But that doesn't mean it has no shortcomings, or that such shortcomings can (or should) be dismissed.

[LuckyR]

Science is theoretically objective, but as many have noted, since it is practiced by humans it is definitely partially subjective. However, among human endeavors it is one of the most objective practices.

This is oft-repeated, but I don't think it's the core of the issue. Science makes a good attempt to be unbiased, as you say. But science is not 'objective' — corresponding with reality — because it is an inductive discipline, and philosophers know well the shortcomings of induction, having spent centuries arguing about them! I dare say science has other shortcomings too, but this one is much more significant (IMO) than merely observing that scientists are fallible because they're human (even though it's true).

I guess I don't view the inductive nature of science as a shortcoming, since the vast majority of problems science addresses don't lend themselves to being solved deductively.

Yes, that's the core truth. Science is not objective, in the sense that it is not based on solid and unassailable logical (and deductive) argument. It's an inductive discipline. You initially sought to explain science's lack of objectivity with the trivial — relatively speaking — observation that scientists, being human, can make simple mistakes. This seeks to minimise the problem. It's not about human fallibility, it's about humanity's lack of access to objectivity, and 'that which actually is, mind-independently'. And that is not trivial.

But if there isn't any alternative your observations aren't a description of a weakness, it's just a description.