Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

Trippy · Jun 17, 2014

MODERATOR NOTE

3 Posts removed from this thread. Missing posts may be viewed here

As a reminder to ALL parties involved:

H. Netiquette
Civility
...
3. If you post a thread, expect people to reply to it. Bear in mind that the thread is on a public forum and all members are free to contribute to it; you may not place restrictions on who may respond. (The only exception to this is threads in the Formal Debates subforum, which has its own rules.)
...
Interpersonal arguments
6. Personality clashes between members occasionally occur and are unavoidable. It is the responsibility of the members involved to manage their differences in a civil manner. Often, the simplest way to do that is to avoid engaging in discussions with the person concerned.
...
8. Do not engage in flame wars with other members. The argument that ‘He insulted me first’ is unlikely to help you if a moderator has to step in.

SciForums Rules

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Write4U · Jun 17, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you...I'll fix that up right away!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

Does it need fixing and why? I know it is not commonly used, but is it physically wrong that we live in a heliocentric galaxy, or even universe?

Heliocentrism
With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and others, astronomers realized that the sun was not the center of the universe as heliocentrists at the time of Copernicus had supposed. By the 1920s Edwin Hubble had shown that it was part of a galaxy (the Milky Way) that was only one of many billions.[citation needed]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trippy · Jun 17, 2014

dumbest man on earth said: ↑

** the title of this thread should read : objectivity in science - subjectivity on sciforums **
please excuse my failed editing - prior to posting the op, dmoe
Click to expand...

ftfy

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Write4U · Jun 17, 2014

Originally Posted by DMOE

"Objective Observation basically means that the observation is "independent of mind (set)".
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

"They contain no personal or individual "slant" or "perspective".
Click to expand...

. Prima faci yes, but one could make a counter argument that a "new slant" or "relative perspective" might reveal a lot about the truth of a proposition. Of course the scientific method must be used while evaluating facts, but theory should be free to "entertain" novel and innovative approaches, models and experiments.

StrangerInAStrangeLand · Jun 17, 2014

Write4U said: ↑

Does it need fixing and why? I know it is not commonly used, but is it physically wrong that we live in a heliocentric galaxy, or even universe?
Click to expand...

Did you see what he changed it to?

Write4U · Jun 17, 2014

StrangerInAStrangeLa said: ↑

Did you see what he changed it to?
Click to expand...

Yes, I cannot see anything wrong either way. It depends on the scope and context of the subject. Atom, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe?

StrangerInAStrangeLand · Jun 17, 2014

Write4U said: ↑

Yes, I cannot see anything wrong either way. It depends on the scope and context of the subject. Atom, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe?
Click to expand...

Heliocentric Universe would mean the entire universe orbits a star, which they thought for while when they did not realize how big the universe is or that it consists of many galaxies consisting of solar systems. Heliocentric Galaxy would mean each galaxy orbits a star or that the galaxies within a group/cluster orbit a star. Heliocentric Solar System means that everything in each solar system orbits its star or is moved in that orbit with whatever it is orbiting.

paddoboy · Jun 17, 2014

Write4U said: ↑

Yes, I cannot see anything wrong either way. It depends on the scope and context of the subject. Atom, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe?
Click to expand...

Hiya Write4U.....
When stranger pointed out my heliocentric Universe remark, It did immediately dawn on me that I had made an unintentional error. And without further ado, I changed it straight away, to the way I meant and understood it.
Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

StrangerInAStrangeLand · Jun 17, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

Hiya Write4U.....
When stranger pointed out my heliocentric Universe remark, It did immediately dawn on me that I had made an unintentional error. And without further ado, I changed it straight away, to the way I meant and understood it.
Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

We all make tyops! Next time I do, I hope someone tells me quickly. Hope you get your head back.

Write4U · Jun 17, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

Hiya Write4U.....
When stranger pointed out my heliocentric Universe remark, It did immediately dawn on me that I had made an unintentional error. And without further ado, I changed it straight away, to the way I meant and understood it.
Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

In context of the subject I thought it had some humor in it.......
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

dumbest man on earth · Jun 17, 2014

dumbest man on earth said: ↑

** The title of this Thread should read : Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums **
Please excuse my failed editing - prior to Posting the OP, dmoe
Click to expand...

- the ^^above quoted^^from my Post #10 of this Thread : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141869-Objectivity-in-Science-Subjectivity-on-SciForums

Trippy said: ↑

Trippy said:

** The title of this Thread should read : objectivity in science - subjectivity on SciForums **
Please excuse my failed editing - prior to Posting the OP, dmoe
Click to expand...

ftfy
Click to expand...

Trippy , thank you kindly for "fixing that for" me. I appreciate it.

Is there just possibly any chance, at all, that you may be able to "fix" the Post #2 of this Thread : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141869-Objectivity-in-Science-Subjectivity-on-SciForums

Once again Trippy, thank you kindly for "fixing that for" me.

I really do appreciate the effort, put forth by the Members and the Admins/Mods, to make SciForums such an enjoyable Forum to have Open, Earnest, and Honest Discussions on Real Science.

I would like to further extend my Thanks to all of those Members and all of those Admins/Mods that do go that "Extra Mile", so to speak, to put forth that extremely appreciated effort.

paddoboy · Jun 17, 2014

The cry for more objectivity in science, [and this forum] is a storm in a teacup.
Why?
Because science does encompass subjectivity, [and rightly so] as long as that subjectivity is governed by the scientific methodology and peer review.
So in essence, subjectivity is desired, [as long as it align with the scientific method and peer review] and in reality then progresses to objectivity and scientific theoretical status.
And isn't this how most scientific theories eventuate? In the beginnings, they are just speculative hypothetical concepts.
And this forum, in the main, and its members in the main, do seem to support the scientific method and peer review.
We have our own alternative hypothesis and pseudoscience forums for non objective material, that will in most cases, never see the light of the scientific day.

dumbest man on earth · Jun 17, 2014

curiosityaroused.com said:

Subjective vs. Objective: What’s the Difference?

In science, objective observation is the gold standard – at least, that’s what most undergrads hear in every science class. But what exactly is the difference between objective vs. subjective?

Since concepts are much easier to explain in context, let’s start with some definitions and then look at an example of how they migjht apply in real life.

Definition of Subjective
The Merriam-Webster dictionary, defines subjective as:
“characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.”

The definition essentially says that when something, like an observation, is subjective, it has its basis inside of a person’s mind. When that is the case, the subjective observation is ruled by the life, memories, biases, and prejudices of the person that came up with it. A subjective observation is based on how an individual perceives reality, rather than reality itself. Therefore, this observation could change wildly based on the person making the observation.

Definition of Objective
Merriam-Webster defines objective as
“of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.”

This means that the observation originates and occurs outside of the mind of any one individual. When this is the case, that observation is observable by any other person looking at the same situation, provided subjective biases are removed.

An Example
I got into an argument with a friend once over whether or not a film was “good”. His point was that he could not relate to the themes of the film, and therefore did not enjoy it, making the film a bad movie. He felt that his opinion was enough to classify a film as “bad”.

Having not seen the movie, I had no personal bias upon which to base my opinion. I had, however, heard from several people about the technical values of the film. Things like the quality of the cameras used, the subtlety of the direction choices or the complexity of the score.

In this example, one could argue that there is no “objective” way to observe a movie as a whole. By nature, experiencing a film is a subjective experience, colored by our own individual preferences, experiences, and emotional sensitivity. My friend’s personal experiences and tastes caused him to subjectively evaluate the film as “bad”.

But while my friend may have subjectively observed the film as “bad”, this doesn’t change my other friends’ objective observations about specific elements of the film – the high level of the camera work, the use of cutting-edge special effects, the critical acclaim of the actors. In fact, a person can subjectively experience a film as “bad”, “boring”, or “offensive”, while objectively acknowledging the technical merits of the film.

Objectivity in Science
The reason why objectivity is so important in science is that science deals in objective facts rather than subjective opinions. A main component of the scientific process is the ability for any experiment to be replicated by anyone with inclination to do so.

This replication and reproduction of data is the only way that concepts become accepted in the scientific community. If an observation cannot be recreated, then that original observation is usually deemed a coincidence or human error in observation.

The real difference in subjective vs. objective is that objective situations can be observed independent of personal biases and experience (i.e. data), whereas subjective situations can usually only be viewed by one person, filtered through their unique lens of personal experience, taste, emotion, and bias.
Click to expand...

- the ^^above Quoted^^ from : http://www.curiosityaroused.com/skepticism/subjective-vs-objective-whats-the-difference/

dumbest man on earth · Jun 17, 2014

Maureen Gamble said:

Subjective versus Objective

Schools of philosophy and psychology have long debated the value of thoughts and ideas by the nature of approach to their investigation. It would seem that the validity of concepts, ideas and information is often judged by our notion of which of these classifications it is deemed to fit—Subjective or Objective. To attempt any understanding of these attitudes or arguments, it is first necessary to find a suitable definition of these terms. Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary provides some interesting insights into the vast diversity of what our language has come to signify by these terms.

Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; phenomenal; arising out of or identified by means of one’s awareness.

Objective: existing independent of mind; belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods; expressing or involving the use of facts; derived from sense perception.

If you find it difficult to define exactly where sensory observation ends and individual awareness of that observation begins, you understand the problems of addressing this area of controversy. Even those who chose to selectively define the underlying terms must depend on another’s perception of that definition to have a meaningful discourse. The very nature of the argument is one of definitions.

One of the differentiating factors of objective evaluation seems to be its basis in scientific method. Although relatively recent in its definition, the methods used to investigate and evaluate "scientific" data have been agreed on as a means of determining what is real from what is just thought to be—the objective as contrasted to the subjective. Scientific method relies heavily on observation (sensory input), reproducibility (observing the same output from the same input repeatedly) and consensus (agreement by others on what is a correct observation). Even within the scientific method, there is heavy reliance on interpretation of sensory data, a function of the mind, to prove that a phenomenon (subjective) actually exists (objective) separately from the individual’s perception of it. It would appear that at its most essential level, all objective facts are recognized through repeated subjective experience by enough concurring individuals for them to be accepted as facts. There are many examples throughout history of accepted "facts" that changed dramatically when enough persons experienced a conflicting phenomenon or perceived the old phenomenon in a different context. Copernicus changed what we know of science forever with his introspective insights into celestial observations, which had been interpreted differently and accepted as facts and laws for many years.

Even Popper’s "World 3" suffers this shortcoming of the objectivity test in that the contents of books, scientific theory or critical arguments change from century to century as our experience and perception of the phenomenological world change. Examine his example of proof for the existence and value of World 3 with a slight change. Imagine that all machines and tools are destroyed, and all our subjective learning, including our subjective knowledge of machines and tools and how to use them. Further imagine that all the books written since 1000 AD were also destroyed. Our ability to reestablish our civilization would be severely impacted by the inaccuracy and distortion of how the remaining information defines reality. We would, in effect, adopt the shared reality of that millennium as the basis for our facts, until the subjective experience of enough individuals and their interpretation of those experiences brought about another shift in our "scientific" awareness. We can quickly see that factual information is not, of itself, objective, but is a consensual description of subjective experiences.

British physicist-mathematician-astronomer Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) cogently defined science as "the earnest attempt to set in order the facts of experience" (142). He later observed that "Reality is in some sense constructed by the mind, not simply perceived by it, and many such constructions are possible, none necessarily sovereign" (143). Albert Einstein was abundantly aware of this aspect of scientific method. He observed that "our theories are inventions of our minds that we use for practical purposes, and that allow us to make comprehensible what is sensorily given. Fundamentally, in theory building we invent, and from our inventions infer, and then test for accuracy, economy, logical coherence, and scope" (34). It then follows that "theoretical systems", an important inmate of Popper’s World 3, is actually a product of mind, and is inherently subjective by its very nature.

Those physicists, like Niels Bohr and Nick Herbert, who leapfrogged over Einstein to develop the concepts of quantum mechanics even propose that the distinction between subjective and objective is functionally non-existent. In The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot explains that "there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them. For instance, when an electron isn’t being looked at, experimental findings suggest that it is always a wave" (34). Herbert comments that this interpretation has sometimes caused him to imagine that behind his back the world is always "a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup" (Talbot, 34). Reality, that ultimate test of objectivity, may only be an individual subjective experience created by our participation and observation. Our collective reality may be constructed and rearranged by our thoughts, intentions and expectations. In the light of this "new science", the relative value of subjectivity versus objectivity, especially for the purpose of scientific investigation, seems to be as meaningless as the pre-Columbian debates over whether there were monsters at the edge of the known world or just a bottomless pit.
Click to expand...

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.lightouch.com/subjobj.htm

dumbest man on earth · Jun 17, 2014

Manisha Kumar said:

Difference Between Objective and Subjective

Subjective vs Objective

In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

When to Be Objective and Subjective
Objective : it is important to be objective when you are making any kind of a rational decision. It might involve purchasing something or deciding which job offer to take. You should also be objective when you are reading, especially news sources. Being objective when you are meeting and having discussions with new people helps you to keep your concentration focused on your goal, rather than on any emotions your meeting might trigger.
Subjective : can be used when nothing tangible is at stake. When you are watching a movie or reading a book for pleasure, being subjective and getting caught up in the world of the characters makes your experience more enjoyable. If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective.

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.
Click to expand...

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/

paddoboy · Jun 17, 2014

From post 33:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Objectivity in Science
The reason why objectivity is so important in science is that science deals in objective facts rather than subjective opinions. A main component of the scientific process is the ability for any experiment to be replicated by anyone with inclination to do so.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Which is wholly supported and dictated by the scientific method and peer review.

From post 35:
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the art
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Those conclusions are basically correct, but it fails to mention the point I made earlier, that subjective statements/opinions/speculations/ideas, can be forerunners in the science disciplines, before reaching theoretical theory status.
eg: Galileo after observing the moons of Jupiter, had a subjective, speculative opinion that Earth was not the center of the solar system/galaxy/Universe.
He was later shown to be correct.

eg: Georges Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory in 1927, but at that time, a speculative, subjective opinion, that later grew to theoretical status in 1929 after Hubble's expansion discovery, and further reinforced in the 60's with the discovery of the CMBR

dumbest man on earth · Jun 17, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

Those conclusions are basically correct, but it fails to mention the point I made earlier, that subjective statements/opinions/speculations/ideas, can be forerunners in the science disciplines, before reaching theoretical theory status.
eg: Galileo after observing the moons of Jupiter, had a subjective, speculative opinion that Earth was not the center of the solar system/galaxy/Universe.
He was later shown to be correct.

eg: Georges Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory in 1927, but at that time, a speculative, subjective opinion, that later grew to theoretical status in 1929 after Hubble's expansion discovery, and further reinforced in the 60's with the discovery of the CMBR
Click to expand...

..."conclusions"..."basically correct, but"..."subjective statements/opinions/speculations/ideas, can be forerunners in the science disciplines, before reaching theoretical theory status."

dumbest man on earth said: ↑

1.) - Should SciForums allow or condone Subjective Observations in discussions about Science?
2.) - Should not all Members of SciForums respect Science by keeping Subjective Observations out of all discussions?

Click to expand...

This is 2014, the various Scientific Methods are already firmly established and accepted by "Mainstream Science".
We are not proposing, speculating, hypothesizing nor theorizing on the development of those Scientific Methods.

However, if you are proposing, speculating, hypothesizing or theorizing on the development of Alternative Scientific Methods...
...well...I believe that I have read many times on SciForums, that there is a "sub-forum" for "speculative ideas", "hypotheses", and "theoretical theories" that do not align with "Accepted Mainstream Science"...

...surely you have read something about that on SciForums...?

paddoboy · Jun 17, 2014

dumbest man on earth said: ↑

..."

This is 2014, the various Scientific Methods are already firmly established and accepted by "Mainstream Science".
We are not proposing, speculating, hypothesizing nor theorizing on the development of those Scientific Methods.
Click to expand...

I'm simply inferring the obvious fact, that some God botherers/Creationists, some alternative hypothesis pushers, and probably all conspiracy pseudoscience adherers and their supporters, do not follow the scientific methodology, or peer review, consequently, their then lack of objectivity and complete derision and ignoring of those two proven and tried systems [scientific method and peer review]

NOTE: Nothing wrong with subjectivity as I have explained, and if the two aforementioned conditions are upheld.

dumbest man on earth · Jun 18, 2014

I cannot comment on any "simply inferring the obvious fact"...

I have read and re-read the OP.
Honestly, I Objectively Observe no reference to any "God botherers/Creationists, some alternative hypothesis pushers, and probably all conspiracy pseudoscience adherers and their supporters" that "do not follow the scientific methodology, or peer review" in the OP

Do you know who first Posted about or mentioned these "God botherers/Creationists, some alternative hypothesis pushers, and probably all conspiracy pseudoscience adherers and their supporters" in this Thread?

Do you know why these "God botherers/Creationists, some alternative hypothesis pushers, and probably all conspiracy pseudoscience adherers and their supporters" were first Posted about or mentioned in this Thread?

I do know the answer to one of those questions.
I Grok'd the answer by the application of truly Objective Observation.

I cannot possibly provide an answer to the other one of those questions - because I do not infer, assume, nor presume, when I am trying to establish the actual truth of reality, or the actual facts of reality.

But, that is just because of what I was taught in Grade School, Middle School, High School, College and working in various Science Disciplines for 35 years.

Meh!...I'm still trying to work out what exactly a "theoretical theory" is, and what differentiates it from a "non-theoretical theory", or just a "theory"...???!!!

But...my moniker is dumbest man on earth...so...

Beer w/Straw · Jun 18, 2014

Some people on sciforums are dishonest.

It's that simple.

This is an answer to the thread, not your immediate post.

Log in or Sign up

Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Write4U Valued Senior Member

StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Write4U Valued Senior Member

StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches