Philosophy Discussion Forums

Arjen wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 10:35 am That (most) scientists are not serious enough. It shows in the complete absence of understanding what objectivity even means. And it is formalised in the adoption of likelihood into scientific research.

OK, so what does "objectivity" mean? What is the meaning you intend to convey when you use this word? I have asked four or five times now, and you continue to ignore this simple request for clarification. What's the problem?

As a scientist 2 forms of subjectification should be understood:
1) The fact that all observations are subjectified by the previous life of the subject.
2) The fact that all observations are subjective perceptions and as such describe a phenomenon and not a noumenon.

I did mention this a few times now pattern-chaser. Sometimes you should read back

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 10:46 am

Arjen wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 10:35 am That (most) scientists are not serious enough. It shows in the complete absence of understanding what objectivity even means. And it is formalised in the adoption of likelihood into scientific research.

OK, so what does "objectivity" mean? What is the meaning you intend to convey when you use this word? I have asked four or five times now, and you continue to ignore this simple request for clarification. What's the problem?

Arjen wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 10:51 am I did mention this a few times now pattern-chaser. Sometimes you should read back

Oh, I read back a lot. And what I read is that, in a topic that considers whether science is objective, you are unable to say what you mean by "objective". I conclude, after asking so many times, to no avail, that you don't have any real clue at all of what objectivity is. And yet, in a topic centred on objectivity, you have a lot to say about it. Incomprehensible.

In that case I conclude that you have not read objectively or thought objectively.

Arjen wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 12:22 pm In that case I conclude that you have not read objectively or thought objectively.

What do you mean by that? You are using a word you are apparently unable to define or understand.

I rest my case.

Subjectivity can be absolute.
Objectivity is an aspiration only.

Arjen wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 1:29 pm I rest my case.

You have made no case, only asserted your views unclearly, and refused to clarify.

When it comes to explaining what was responsible for producing the history of life on earth, no, science is not objective. If evolutionary scientists were objective, they would not dogmatically push the rubbish theory of Darwinism down the public's throat, as if it is some vitally important fact that must be believed.

TheAstronomer wrote:Is science objective?

No. The truths of science rely upon the 'uncertain' nature of experiential objects/evidence and therefore are 'subjective'. We can't get objectivity from science; subjectivity.

We get 'objective' truths from Logic (and math).

The truths of science are man-made.
The truths of logic (and math) are given-to-man.

Of course science is objective. It deals with the physical stuff the world is made of. The story itself though is a story we tell and thus personal. Different people, different groups of people, tell different stories. All want their stories to be objectively true. Who doesn't? As long as we realize it are all just stories, everything is okay.

RJG wrote: ↑January 31st, 2022, 9:34 am

TheAstronomer wrote:Is science objective?

No. The truths of science rely upon the 'uncertain' nature of experiential objects/evidence and therefore are 'subjective'. We can't get objectivity from science; subjectivity.

We get 'objective' truths from Logic (and math).

The truths of science are man-made.
The truths of logic (and math) are given-to-man.

Ok, so when a scientist uses logic to make a hypothesis and then designs an experiment to support or disprove the hypothesis, and the experimental results are in conflict with the hypothesis (that was arrived at through the scientist's use of logic), what is the conclusion?

Raymond wrote:Of course science is objective. It deals with the physical stuff the world is made of. The story itself though is a story we tell and thus personal. Different people, different groups of people, tell different stories. All want their stories to be objectively true. Who doesn't? As long as we realize it are all just stories, everything is okay.

If these "stories" (or "truths" or "theories", etc) are "man-made", then they are subjective, not objective.

***********

LuckyR wrote:Ok, so when a scientist uses logic to make a hypothesis and then designs an experiment to support or disprove the hypothesis, and the experimental results are in conflict with the hypothesis (that was arrived at through the scientist's use of logic), what is the conclusion?

Sound deductive logic, like mathematics, doesn't commit errors.

Humans can make errors in math/logic, but math/logic itself can't make errors.

If an experimental result doesn't follow the logic or the math, then there is a human error somewhere.

RJG wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2022, 7:19 am

Raymond wrote:Of course science is objective. It deals with the physical stuff the world is made of. The story itself though is a story we tell and thus personal. Different people, different groups of people, tell different stories. All want their stories to be objectively true. Who doesn't? As long as we realize it are all just stories, everything is okay.

If these "stories" (or "truths" or "theories", etc) are "man-made", then they are subjective, not objective.

***********

LuckyR wrote:Ok, so when a scientist uses logic to make a hypothesis and then designs an experiment to support or disprove the hypothesis, and the experimental results are in conflict with the hypothesis (that was arrived at through the scientist's use of logic), what is the conclusion?

Sound deductive logic, like mathematics, doesn't commit errors.

Humans can make errors in math/logic, but math/logic itself can't make errors.

If an experimental result doesn't follow the logic or the math, then there is a human error somewhere.

For the one who tells the story, there is an objective reality. The subjective stories describe an objective reality. I have a different story than the standard model story. I consider that story as objectively false. The story it tells is subjective though. Since Xenophanes introduced the notion of one and only reality this idea got a firm grip on western reality. There can only be one reality, the same for all. I agree but that reality is the story we present, so subjective.

RJG wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2022, 7:19 am
***********

LuckyR wrote:Ok, so when a scientist uses logic to make a hypothesis and then designs an experiment to support or disprove the hypothesis, and the experimental results are in conflict with the hypothesis (that was arrived at through the scientist's use of logic), what is the conclusion?

Sound deductive logic, like mathematics, doesn't commit errors.

Humans can make errors in math/logic, but math/logic itself can't make errors.

If an experimental result doesn't follow the logic or the math, then there is a human error somewhere.

Exactly, human "logic" or more accurately "guesswork" is very prone to errors, thus why experiments need to be performed rather than making hypotheses and prematurely considering the work to be completed, when in fact it has not even started.