Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

and this....

http://www.direct-ms.org/sites/default/files/ScientificSubjectivity.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it all boils down to the fact that all knowledge IS NOT derived from science.
the 2 are not synonymous.

yes, and like i stated, experience and instincts are not subjected to the method.
both are examples of knowledge gained outside of science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From our Linguist expert:

Again, that in no way takes away from the objective fact, that subjectivity is also part and parcel of science, with the possibility of advancing to a well supported near 100% certain objective scientific theory, of the likes of the BB, SR, GR, QM, and Evolution.
Not sure what you are trying to prove or say.
Why not start calling a spade a shovel?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in my opinion ALL experience is objective, it only becomes subjective when you relate that experience to another human.

knowledge is gained REGARDLESS of the number of "witnesses"
i think you are trying to involve "credibility" here.

 

There are two aspects to an experience, though.
First there is the reality of the interaction: what actually happened.
This is objective.
Second is the interpretation by the individual of what happened.
This is subjective.

e.g. Experience X was interpreted by Bob as Y.
X is objective, Y is subjective.

However, it is also objective that Bob interpreted X as Y.
This is an objective matter: he did interpret it as Y.

But in as much as we define experience as our interpretation of the interaction, then I would argue that all experience is subjective.
But the interaction itself is objective.

This may just be a matter of semantics, though?

Philosophically speaking, is not knowledge a justified true belief?
I know this has been argued over by the best of them, and it is not a great definition but it is a reasonable starting point.
As I understand the arguments, though, the common attribute of knowledge is that it is true.
Common agreement does not make something true.

In the absence of its absolute truth being evidenced, the truth of any (claim of) "knowledge" is otherwise accepted or not on grounds of rationality and logic.
And these things science can provide, through the scientific method etc.

Meh, I'm waffling.

 

Is that not the function of Science, to find "credible" evidence of the way things work? Knowledge must be credible or it might as well be garbage. I am seriously concerned about the virtual world in which we are beginning to find ourselves and the separation from reality. Ask yourself, how many obese animals do we see in the wild? How far do they range to retain a viable living condition? Without drugs to keep us alive (moi), how much lower would our lifespan be? Pertinent "knowledge"could save half of that problem almost immediately. But we misuse our knowledge to make a profit, instead of promoting healthy living.

Secondly, I disagree with your use of the term "knowledge" where only "information" is gained regardless of numbers. All living organisms (at least those with neural systems) experience their environment "subjectively". But none of that represents "knowledge" as defined in Science. The question of "knowledge" (with a hight degree of confidence) about that information is by concensus (following scientific methods of testing and falsifying), especially concensus by scientists engaged in that field of "inquiry".

Perhaps certain physical and emotional reactions to external stimuli may become hardwired because they are a persistent environmental condition to be dealt with. Natural selection will 'select" those with the positive responses to the challenges and "deselect" those with fatal responses. But then we call it "adaption", or "instinct", not "knowledge".

 

in my opinion?
no.
science isn't a method of proof, it's a method of discovery.

i have personal experiences that i call "incredible", they happened.
those experiences are real whether you find them "credible" or not.

hardly none, which implies obesity is directly related to the processed food we eat.

i disagree.
all experience is objective.
it becomes subjective when you try to relate that experience to another.

knowledge is knowledge whether it's defined by science, god, the pope, or whomever else.
my personal experiences are real, they happened.
some of those experiences can only be defined as "miraculous", science will never explain them, but it's knowledge none the less.

yes, science makes it "more credible" but that in no way says my experiences aren't real.

i believe my original statement stands, science and knowledge are not synonymous with one another.

 

This is not exactly true, since subjectivity can also be a group effect. An entire group can be conditioned to have the same prejudices, biases, personal beliefs, feelings, emotions or attitudes. This makes the subjectivity appear to be objective since all appear to see it. People forget it was all conditioned.

An easy example to see is the PC word police schema. This schema makes use of group subjectivity and should be condemned by objective science. Words are noises/sounds humans make and are entirely arbitrary and subjective with respect to attachment to reality. Once these are conditioned by a culture they sort of appear semi-objective. There is no objective cause and effect that says noise A means X, and if X is uttered, science says this will result in reaction A. This is entirely subjective and conditioned behavior. This can be proven by saying the words to someone who knows only another language; no reaction due to no conditioning.

In another post, I described how statistical math is subjective math, since its data assumptions are not rational and can be proven false if we remain objective to the data and objective reality. All science based on statistics should be called subjective science. But due to group conditioning, this will call objective science. It is not clear that all scientists have their minds calibrated well enough to know the difference and act as judge. Personal attacks common in these forums is all about using a subjective method to judge science, based on conditioning connected to subjective math.

We can run a test to prove statistics is subjective math, based on how the assumptions of this method describe the data set. This method is accepted as objective math due to group conditioning. We will start with 100 car drivers who will drive 100 miles each. A law, based on statistics, says all the drivers need to wear seat belts due to the risk of accident.

To test the objectivity of this math method, that all will be accident prone (all objectively have risk) over this 100 miles, which the theory subjectively implies, we will look for evidence of the risk on each car and driver, after the drive is over. It risk might show up as small spontaneous dents or scratches on the cars, or maybe bruises and cuts on the drivers, since risk is not a ghost. It turns out nearly all had nothing that points to any real risk. The risk was only subjective, based on collective conditioning to the magic words. How can science use something that you can't prove any better than the soul?

The point I am making this is not objective science, but needs a line of collective conditioning with the entire herd repeating the conditioned response, unable to be objective to the final driver data, even after the fact. How can one have risk and not show any signs after the fact? Can you give me a jar of risk to investigate, so I can better knows its magic properties? The PC word police use this schema to accuse and condemn as though the data assumptions apply to all. Why does this alternate theory not get challenged?

Science, like the current version of evolution, makes bold claims, but like the seat belts that all have to wear, the data is soft by objective standards but firmer with subjective standards. This is why this science needs to use politics and law to compensate. Objective science would allow an independent person, who knows nothing of the theory, to draw the same conclusions. This is how e know it is objective. Noise like alternate theory, will not impact this common result, unless that result is subjective and conditioned.

Politics loves statistics and polls because it can spin this due to the data subjectivity implicit of the method. With polls, it is not just the words that matter, but also the subjective inflection of the voice that asked the question. If you ask is X doing a good job with disgust or is X doing a good job with enthusiasm, this will impact the poll. This is analogous to adding chaos (all at risk) being added that permeates beyond the 20/20 hindsight of the facts. On paper it looks objective since paper will not reveal the conditioned bias of the questioner. Nor will it take not account pre-conditioning by news personalities. It is data manipulation by adding subjectivity somewhere alone the line. Wit subjective theory building on subjective theory this compounds.

In an alternate theorist challenges any science based on statistical methods, both should be considered alternative. The true test of which is objective science should not be collective programming (biggest army of followers) but the one that uses the most logic and does not require subjective math. This is not how the herd is conditioned, since they think science is subjective; prestige.

 

it should be pointed out that the only real problem with statistics is the problem of false correlations.
statistics can indeed "prove" something where that "something" doesn't actually exist.
and it's something everyone should be made aware of.
in other words, when dealing with statistical matters, you definitely need to know EXACTLY what you are dealing with.

in my opinion, logic and reason aren't enough when dealing with "statistical evidence".

 

Objectivity without scrutiny is dogma. True objectivity is just a majority of equal subjective opinions. You need subjectivity for its diversity, for innovations and discoveries which often do challenge objective or popular ideas. History has proven objectivity of yesterday can easily become a foolish error for the objectivity of tomorrow. Objectivity is supposed to change, to evolve under pressure and power of diverse subjective thought, and if it refuses, it's because of the alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords.

 

i believe the word "independent" needs to go between equal and subjective.
independent of culture etc.

 

I trust you are being facetious here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

there could be other causes i guess, genetic for example.
isn't obesity a recent trend?
stress could be a cause.
mental illness.
any others?

my best guess would be genetic and processed foods.

 

How about over-eating?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know a few vegans and vegetarians who are as wide as their greenhouse doors, simply 'cos they do so little exercise compared to the amount of food they eat.
Eating far more calories than you burn off will make you obese, irrespective of the type of food you eat.

I'm sure there are many reasons why people tend to over-eat and become obese, but being obese is related to processed foods only in the same way that it's related to the hours of television you watch, or the amount of exercise you don't do, etc.
A correlation, perhaps, (which you may have meant) but I'm not sure there's a direct relationship (as in causation etc).
Unless you're aware of any addictive additives they put in chicken McNuggets???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Anyhow, sorry for being off topic... Me bad!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ Trippy and all concerned :

I, dmoe, read, reread and fully consider every Post on this Forum - that interests me.

I, dmoe, put quite a bit more time and consideration into any Post that I am actually "responding to" - Prior to Posting any response"!

A cursory read or a quick scanning does not constitute a truly Objective examination of any presented evidence - especially in Science.

Also, just to be clear on this, if I do not respond or reply Directly to Posts either directed at me or relating to me - it is not because I, dmoe, am Ignoring those Posts. It is because I have fully read and fully considered those Posts, and, under the Posted Rules of SciForums, something that Members of SciForums are Warned that they Should Not Reply To!

 

I respond to posts when I feel like it.

 

As I said before, I don't understand you. Since science literally means "knowledge", and since Science, and we generally use the term, means "the acquisition of knowlege" (among other things), it makes no sense to say "science and knowledge are not synonymous". And it makes less sense to say "all knowledge is not derived from science". (All knowledge is not derived from knowledge?) What's even more confusing to me is why you seem to want to put limitations on science by setting up this line of reasoning, particularly in a science thread on a science forum visited by, among other folks, actual practicing scientists and engineers. You seem to want to complain that science is being unfairly glorified. (I remember you said something once about folks putting science on a silver platter.) There is a kind of cynical tone here I'm picking up. Of course that's just my objective analysis of your subjective opinions on science. I could try to be more subjective if you wish.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"the method?" So...when Darwin stopped the Beagle on its passage East so he could stop and collect coral specimens, and measure the sea depth (the height of the towers) was he acting on instinct and experience, and was that activity not subjected to "the method"? It's hard to understand what you mean by "subjected to", but he obviously felt compelled to do it, just as he stopped to the expedition in places like Argentina so he could excavate some bones & fossils he knew were there. If a person feels compelled to literally dig up the truth, then isn't that all that matters? I have trouble figuring out why you have these reservations. The point is discovery (knowledge). As soon as a person engages the world with that kind of agenda, then science is happening. I don't see where the question of "knowledge being derived from science" comes into play. I see folks engaging in "the acquisition of knowledge" which of course also employs their existing knowledge, but why draw the distinctions like you have. It's all science. When the subject is science of course, which is what we're talking about.

I guess that's debatable. I'm not comfortable with where you're heading because you seem to want to limit the scope of science, the way the conservatives want to limit "Big Government"--as if to say it's an entity that's become too powerful, probably becuase the public is letting it get too big and powerful. That's me being objective again, mixed with some speculation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think that I'm inclined to agree with Leopold.

Many people know many different things (who their children are, where their toothbrush is) that don't seem to be scientific knowledge. So the idea that science is the only admissible source of justification for knowledge claims is almost certainly too strong.

It might be more plausible if one insisted that all justifications for knowledge claims be such as can be explained by science or otherwise reducible to known physical processes. Of course that assumes that our present science is suitably developed for that to be possible, which might be questionable. The functioning of the human brain is still something of a black box at the moment, for one thing. We still don't understand what logic is and how humans know about it, precisely what time is, or how word meaning and reference work. There are a lot of details that remain to be filled in.

And doubtless some subset of what science takes today to be scientific knowledge will turn out to be mistaken in the light of future developments. It seems obvious that just because some scientists insist that they know that X is true, that their statement X represents a fact about the world, doesn't logically guarantee the objective reality of X. It increases the probability of X being true, perhaps quite a bit. How much depends on what scientific justification the scientists can trot out. But no conceivable scientific justification would ever seem to make X necessarily true.

I guess that I think of the set of all propositions that are scientific assertions and the set of all propositions that represent real objective knowledge as two overlapping sets that probably don't totally coincide.