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

[Jack D Ripper]

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

My guess is that he feels that way because he is more interested in philosophy than science. But I don't think that the serious study of the history of philosophy would support that opinion. In the case of science, there are standards for determining what counts as true and what counts as false. In philosophy, there are no such standards. This is why the most basic questions are invariably controversial in philosophy. As I explained this in another thread, I will simply quote myself rather than retype it:

I have heard a lot about Kant and am a philosophy undergraduate. However, even after researching many areas, these scholastic papers do not seem to tell me whether Kant is correct or wholesale wrong. For instance even Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy just state what Kant’s viewpoint is

...[links omitted because this site will not let me post links]

They do not state whether it is rubbish or what

In contrast, other topics such as Causation in philosophy or Justified True Belief have more definite answers whether they are “right or wrong”

Now how shall I take Kant’s theory

The reason for that is really quite simple. Most things in philosophy are controversial and there is very little in the way of consensus. Consequently, some philosophy professors regard Kant as being horribly wrong, and others regard him as the greatest philosopher ever. And then, of course, there are opinions in between. There is no standard criteria for deciding which philosophers are correct and which are not, unlike, say, physicists, where empirical testing is used to determine which theories are correct and which do not match reality. As a consequence of this, there are many resources which attempt to give an "objective" perspective on various philosophers, rather than expressing an opinion on whether the philosopher in question is right or wrong about the things they state.

And, of course, before judging whether something is correct or incorrect, one must first understand what, if anything, is being claimed. So that tends to be what such sources attempt to help one with, though obviously some are better than others at such things, and, however much one might try to be objective, most people do have an opinion about the things they know about what various philosophers claim.

In the case of Kant, he is too important to the history of philosophy to ignore, so if you are going to major in philosophy, you should study him, even if you think he is utter crap. You will also want to study Plato and Aristotle and Hume for the same reason, that they are all very highly regarded by a significant number of people, and they have all been extremely influential in the history of philosophy. So someone majoring in philosophy should try to understand the main ideas of all of those philosophers, even though, of course, at least three of them must be wrong in a big way about something, since they all contradict each other.

[Arjen]

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

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?

My guess is that he feels that way because he is more interested in philosophy than science. But I don't think that the serious study of the history of philosophy would support that opinion.

I would say it's a lot more hit-or-miss than science. However, when it comes to trying to understand subjective experience, I think science needs philosophy to round out the picture.

[Steve3007]

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.

What exactly would constitute "being taken too seriously"? What activities does taking science too seriously involve doing?

In what sense does being limited to a particular field limit objectivity?

[Pattern-chaser]

They don't really have a clue about objectivity.

Neither do any of us, if we insist on using the term "objective" without clarifying what we mean by it. Correspondence with that which actually is? Or just vaguely impartial? We all know the term can be used in these different ways. Using it without clarification is to deliberately mislead or deceive, maybe intended to derail the discussion in progress...?

[Arjen]

Neither do any of us, if we insist on using the term "objective" without clarifying what we mean by it. Correspondence with that which actually is? Or just vaguely impartial? We all know the term can be used in these different ways. Using it without clarification is to deliberately mislead or deceive, maybe intended to derail the discussion in progress...?

Well, I am not derailing. But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.

Scientists that do not consider the definitions in which they work are just not so serious.

[Arjen]

What exactly would constitute "being taken too seriously"? What activities does taking science too seriously involve doing?

In what sense does being limited to a particular field limit objectivity?

See the above Steve

[Steve3007]

But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.

Likelihood, as opposed to what? Certainty? Was there a time when science (or anything else) produced certainty?

Could you give an example of something you regard as a "parameter of the system" in the context you're talking about here?

[Arjen]

But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.

Likelihood, as opposed to what? Certainty? Was there a time when science (or anything else) produced certainty?

Could you give an example of something you regard as a "parameter of the system" in the context you're talking about here?

Likelihood comes from empiricism: I observe 98% of the times X, 2 % of the time Y.
Rationalism tries to work out HOW or WHY that happens.

Transcendental is when both line up

[Count Lucanor]

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.

The actual question seems to be: "is the knowledge pursued by science objective?", in other words, are its truths mind-independent truths? Generally speaking, science is systematized knowledge and it seeks for universal agreement through reliable methodical research, so definitely, objectivity is at the front of science's aims. Even though every human endeavor is subject to the cognitive bias of human interests, the whole point of science is to introduce controls in its research methods that guarantee those bias are filtered out. Peer review, replication and isolation of variables are some of those controls. That does not eliminate altogether human interest from science, nor it eliminates its paradigmatic philosophical foundations, but it doesn't make science subjective, it simply makes possible the coexistence of objectivity and human interests in the practice of science. The key, again, is method.

Now, within scientific practices, not all fields have the same objects of study and the same methods. The knowledge produced by natural science related to inanimate objects within predetermined systems tends to be easier to predict and control, therefore the objectivity of such knowledge is almost always guaranteed, unlike the science related to complex biological systems, especially human society. The openness and complexities of those systems make universal agreement harder to achieve, philosophical perspectives and human interests add more burdens to the search of objectivity there. Harder, but not impossible.

[Pattern-chaser]

Neither do any of us, if we insist on using the term "objective" without clarifying what we mean by it. Correspondence with that which actually is? Or just vaguely impartial? We all know the term can be used in these different ways. Using it without clarification is to deliberately mislead or deceive, maybe intended to derail the discussion in progress...?

Well, I am not derailing. But, the thing is that scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood and work within a system. The group that thinks about why the parameters of the system are as they are and see if they make sense or not and adjust when needed, that group are not only scientists anymore. They are also philosophers.

Scientists that do not consider the definitions in which they work are just not so serious.

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...?

They don't really have a clue about objectivity.

So how are you using this contentious term?

[Steve3007]

Likelihood, as opposed to what? Certainty?

Likelihood comes from empiricism: I observe 98% of the times X, 2 % of the time Y.

So likelihood as opposed to certainty?

Rationalism tries to work out HOW or WHY that happens.

Could you give me an example of what you refer to as "rationalism" doing this?

[Arjen]

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.

They don't really have a clue about objectivity.

So how are you using this contentious term?

Because that is the point I was making.

Does this clarify?

[Arjen]

So likelihood as opposed to certainty?

Yes, I think this is a subversion of science somehow. Perhaps on purpose. If I could, I would pin it on the CCP, sadly, I can't!

Could you give me an example of what you refer to as "rationalism" doing this?

Rousseau famously uses the log in the water. We observe a corner in the log, yet in reality the log is straight. So, we worked out that the light is refracted on the different medium (water), which lead to the defining of the refraction index. Instead of using the observation just like that, someone made multiple and worked out the relation. Rousseau uses that as an explanation of rationalism.

[Steve3007]

Yes, I think this is a subversion of science somehow. Perhaps on purpose.

OK, So when you said this:

...scientists nowadays just produce likelyhood...

I guess you meant that scientists in the olden days produced certainties?

If I could, I would pin it on the CCP, sadly, I can't!

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!

Rousseau famously uses the log in the water. We observe a corner in the log, yet in reality the log is straight. So, we worked out that the light is refracted on the different medium (water), which lead to the defining of the refraction index. Instead of using the observation just like that, someone made multiple and worked out the relation. Rousseau uses that as an explanation of rationalism.

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.