Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

Supporting post 59:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this thread is about objectivity versus subjectivity is it not?
your post 33 seems to imply that the only true objectivity is hard data.
also, "objectivity" doesn't always equal "right".
a total noob can offer an "objective" opinion and still be wrong.
"objective", in my opinion, is the quality of remaining true to your set of facts.
it's also my opinion that ANY opinion on abstract art will ALWAYS be subjective.

is that what you wanted?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fraggle Rocker, here is the "quote" of the full Posted paragraph:

...

Fraggle Rocker, you have presented a very good definition of "trolling".

That definition would, in this instance, be the "the phenomenon, or condition" referenced in the definitions, would it not?

The definition of "trolling" you provided could be either Objectively Observed or Subjectively Observed, could it not?

Fraggle Rocker, do you suppose that any responses, be they Subjective or Objective, will ever be provided to points A through H of my Post #55?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The topic of the OP was asking if Objectivity should be maintained on SciForums, as it is supposed to be in Real Science.

leopold, "what (I) wanted", as you put it, was to spur an honest intelligent discussion by Posters that fully understood the difference between "Objective Observations" and "Subjective Observations".

That is why I referred you to Post #33 - it explained , fairly simply, the definitions of both "objective" and "subjective".
It also explained the reason why objectivity is so important in science.

Possibly, this response answers your questions, leopold.

 

i have no idea what this has to do with post 15.

personal experiences are usually one time affairs, and they are NOT subjected to the method.

instinct is innant knowledge and like experience IS NOT subjected to the method.
where do you come up with this stuff paddoboy?

 

As one who ignores and derides the scientific method and peer review, your knowledge on what is or is not subjected to it is scant to say the least.

Instinct is part of the experience one gains in life...common sense.

I instinctively look left and right before stepping out onto a busy road.
A two year old toddler will not do that.

 

- the ^^Above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

So...you are of course, _ _ _ _ _!

 

I'm wrong!! Darn it!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Accepted.

It certainly though does not in any way shape or form, detract from the essential requirements of both subjectivity and objectivity with relation to science, and fully supported by the scientific method and peer review.

Again dmoe, thanks for that correction on "instinct"
And thanks for the thread....It has given the true scientists on this forum [and me] a chance to be both objective and subjective and shown both are needed in what we both love dmoe, science.
Your own subjective opinions are of course noted.

 

@ - paddoboy

This Thread, which is, of course : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....y-on-SciFirums
Below is a "quote" from Post #2 of This Thread - the first reply to the OP. A few associates of mine parsed and annotated the "quote":

paddoboy, my associates made some Observations of the ^^above quoted^^ Post #2, i.e. "the phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers".
Their collective Observations resulted in a few simple examples of what they all perceived as "trolling".

Those collectively Observed simple examples are presented below:
This Thread, of course, is : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....y-on-SciFirums

A.) - Does the Poster have any Objective Observations relating to the OP of This Thread?

B.) - Where in the OP of This Thread - please "quote" it - does this alleged "agenda" appear?

C.) - Please "quote" this alleged "preamble" from the OP of This Thread?

D.) - Please "quote" from the OP of This Thread, the alleged "mentioning and derision" of the alleged "agenda" appears in the alleged "preamble"?

E.) - Please "quote" from the OP of This Thread, the alleged "Subjective" views?

F.) - Please "quote" from the OP of This Thread, the alleged "mostly in a passive aggressive type of ramble"?

G.) - Please "quote" from the OP of This Thread, the alleged "expressing" of " indignation"?

H.) - Please provide the alleged "evidence" that "others" had replied "back defending their own subjective views", between the Posting of the OP of This Thread - the Post #1 - and Post #2?

paddoboy, my associates were all in agreement that SciForums should, at the very least, apply a modicum of the true Peer Review Process of Science and Academia to be truly considered a "Scientific Forum".

Any thoughts?

 

I see a similarity between "belief" and "knowledge".

Belief (in events) is gained from the subjective experience unique to that person only. Divine Intervention is a Belief System, and therefore subjective, regardless of amount of believers.

Knowledge (of events) is gained from the study and common agreement of independent observations describing the event. Universal Constants are Knowledge Systems.

 

Sure...
It is my subjective opinion, that
[1] I don't accept you have "associates" and I certainly don't align with any of your subjective opinions on what you perceive my opinions are.
[2] My subjective opinions, [all of them] are based on observational evidence....
[3] My objective opinion is that both objectivity and subjectivity, are part and parcel of the progression of science, obvious in how scientific hypothesis [subjectivity] proceeds via the scientific methodology and peer review] to scientific theory.
[4] That is supported by leopolds obvious error [which you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

failed to pick up] and the following definition which has been posted before.

In summing, I stand by all of my subjective and objective claims, except for the definition of "instinct" when I should have said learned behaviour.

 

Actuially I can gain knowledge even if I'm stranded on an uncharted island, without any corroboration by others. It certainly helps to have that, and it forms the framework of all science, from lab groups in freshman Chemistry to peer review, etc. But I agree with what you're saying esp. as it pertains to the stuff sifting through DMOE's argumentative filter. In fact I stridently agree, that this is probably the #1 weakness in all the attacks on science and academia--the cranks really don't seem to know the meaning of "knowledge", and/or their denial is just way too severe for them to recognize the plain meaning of words. Of course they're always from the crowd who flunked out, so there is something fundamentally wrong with them attacking what they never mastered. That sort of makes all of their rant pretty irrelevant.

 

yes, in the "hard sciences" section.

i believe that ANY observation that one human would relate to another has some degree of subjectivity.
i also believe that the only discipline immune to such subjectivity is math, nobody in their right mind would argue 2 plus 2 does not equal 4.

i'm just offering my opinions based on my knowledge.

 

exactly, and it isn't subjected to the method.
ditto instincts.
i think we all can agree that science is not synonymous with knowledge.
i have no idea why paddoboy has such a problem with that.

 

I don't understand you.

The word "science" means "knowledge".

Note I can do science alone, as Darwin often did. At some point there is corroboration and qualilty control (like peer review). But I can do all the preliminaries alone.

"Science" had multiple meanings, depending on usage. But as I think you intend to use the word (the general fields of science) it's equated with the acquisition of knowledge.

 

@ - paddoboy

This is NOT a definition of Objectivity :

The ^^above quote^^ is a "Subjective" opinion of scientific objectivity.

Since you persist in relying on "wiki", try this one :

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

This one also :

- the^^above quoted^^ from : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Objectivity

This definition, more related to Science :

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1237620?uid=3739680&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104172857847

paddoboy, the ^^above^^ are actually definitions of objectivity in relation to Real Science.

 

My subjective opinion is that the effort you put into trying to trip me up, is confusing you with regards to the big picture.
I am saying objectivity and subjectivity are part of science, not that science means objectivity.
I know what objectivity means, I know what subjectivity means. Most of my posts are objective. Most of yours are subjective.
In fact I have posted at least three times with regards to leopolds ongoing problems re definitions, as to what the actual word science means.
Science means and is knowledge. OK?
And it encompasses both objectivity and subjectivity...
And the scientific methodology and peer review, both help maintain the final objective nature of the goal of science.
Now dmoe, what you need to do is stop beating around the bush...say what you mean....in other words, be up front and call your spade a shovel.

If you doubt that science encompasses objectivity and subjectivity, come right out and say it. Then tell us why?
If you do not support the scientific method and peer review, come right out and say it.
Then give us something better.
If you are really a Creationist/religion supporter, Alternative hypothesis pusher or conspiracy adherent, then come right out and say it.
Then give us some evidence to support your claims.
In summing, and as others have noted, stop playing word games.

 

In fact despite your denials, or misinterpretations about my posts, I see my first objective post as post2 thus....

Now dmoe, I have expressed some objective material in that first post, [mainly with regards to the scientific method and peer review] and some subjective, and I feel sure for the average Joe Blow, It's pretty easy to pick which from which.
You subjective opinion on that post is that it contains nothing objective, which is patently wrong

 

This following article explains what I have been saying....

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The science of subjectivity:

While the evidence-based approach of science is lauded for introducing objectivity to processes of investigation, the role of subjectivity in science is less often highlighted in scientific literature. Nevertheless, the scientific method comprises at least two components: forming hypotheses, and collecting data to substantiate or refute each hypothesis (Descartes’ 1637 discourse [Olscamp, 1965]). A hypothesis is a conjecture of a new theory that derives from, but by definition is unproven by, known laws, rules, or existing observations. Hypotheses are always made by one individual or by a limited group of scientists, and are therefore subjective—based on the prior experience and processes of reason employed by those individuals, rather than solely on objective external process. Such subjectivity and concomitant uncertainty lead to competing theories that are subsequently pared down as some are proved to be incompatible with new observations.

Allowing subjectivity is a positive aspect of the scientific method: it allows for leaps of faith which occasionally lead to spell-binding proposals that prove to be valid. Some scientific studies have analyzed how subjectivity contributes to the progression of ideas, and some of those studies are in the geological sciences (Aspinall, 2010). Bond et al. (2012, p. 75 in this issue of Geology) showed a computer-generated seismic cross section, created from an underlying (invented) geological model, to several hundred individual geologists
much more at.....

While Polson and Curtis (2010) and now Bond et al. (2012) show clearly that subjectivity affects geologists’ interpretations, either as individuals or in groups, the existence of subjectivity in forming hypotheses does not necessarily imply a lack of scientific rigour. When recognized explicitly, subjectivity may properly influence scientific inferences, and can also lead to novel hypotheses. Scientists should therefore not be ashamed of subjectivity, but we should strive to develop methods to quantify and sometimes to reduce its effects.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/40/1/95.full
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


hope that helps.