Science and Objectivity

[Luc Turpin]

Science and Objectivity

Note: I have consulted forum guidelines and believe the following to be compliant!

____________________________________________________________________________________  

Does true objectivity exist in science?

Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe.

I have tried to be as objective as possible on this topic by consulting many references on the matter. To my surprise, none seem to claim that “view from nowhere” objectivity truly exists. Even in physics, it is not pure. But, is objectivity sufficiently objective to give us a general appreciation of reality, most authors that I have consulted think so, while I and a minority of others remain doubtful. Reading all of the references would make for a better discussion, but here are a few highlights. The first one is a very good summary of the whole debate.

“If what is so great about science is its objectivity, then objectivity should be worth defending. The close examinations of scientific practice that philosophers of science have undertaken in the past fifty years have shown, however, that several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

“Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn's analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined.^[5]

When observational data arises which appears to contradict or falsify a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm historically have not immediately rejected it, as Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do. Instead they have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm. Through ad hoc variations to the theory and sympathetic interpretation of the data, supporting scientists will resolve the apparent conundrum. In extreme cases, they may ignore the data altogether. Thus, the failure of a scientific paradigm will go into crisis when a significant portion of scientists working in the field lose confidence in it. The corollary of this observation is that a paradigm is contingent on the social order amongst scientists at the time it gains ascendancy.^[5]

Kuhn's theory has been criticised by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Alan Sokal as presenting a relativist view of scientific progress.^[6][7]”

“In Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective (1988), Donna Haraway argues that objectivity in science and philosophy is traditionally understood as a kind of disembodied and transcendent "conquering gaze from nowhere."^[8]: 581 She argues that this kind of objectivity, in which the subject is split apart and distanced from the object, is an impossible "illusion, a god trick."^{[8]: 583–587} She demands a re-thinking of objectivity in such a way that, while still striving for "faithful accounts of the real world,"^[8]: 579 we must also acknowledge our perspective within the world. She calls this new kind of knowledge-making "situated knowledges." Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see."^{[8]: 581–583}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807

“The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.”

– The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Scientific Objectivity”

“There is no such thing as objectivity. We are all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them.”

― Bones, “The Doctor in the Photo”  

“All the evidence points in the opposite direction: every true description is essentially contextual.”

https://philarchive.org/archive/HALODI-2

“But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.”

https://theconversation.com/quantum-physics-our-study-suggests-objective-reality-doesnt-exist-126805

Many people praise physics for being an “objective” science. In “inferior” sciences like sociology, there is seldom any overall consensus on theories, and things are more open to subjective interpretation. But physics on the other hand is the mature man of the sciences, as it is immune to human biases. After all, it relies on cold hard facts — but how true is that? We often think of physics as a veracious equation handed to us from the sky, but how objective is physics, really? In today’s article, we’ll talk about how the history of physics is riddled with many biases and fallacies that still exist to this day.

https://medium.com/@thisscience1/how-objective-is-physics-4072ae22d207

“Summary: Physics, by which I mean models of how reality works at the most fundamental level, is a subjective endeavor. Physics seems to be objective, but that's because there's high intersubjective consensus about which models best explain and predict reality. Rounding this off to objective causes confusion, and the point generalizes for all seemingly objective things.”

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CEXxRcCcWmuEikgvg/physics-is-ultimately-subjective

 

I cast a shadow on objectivity, on reality garnered from this objectivity, on science and its presumed immunity to subjectivity and the reception of ideas brought about by myself to this forum.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Does true objectivity exist in science?

Yes.

Science takes measurements. Of light. Of sound. Of pressure. Of temperature. Of reaction times. Of satellites and planetary orbits. Of the path a baseball will take given a specific air resistance, gravitational intensity, and vector. These measurements and the countless many others are ALL objective. 

Of course objectivity exists in science, in much the same way that of course bias exists in your interpretation of it. 

[exchemist]

45 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science and Objectivity

Note: I have consulted forum guidelines and believe the following to be compliant!

____________________________________________________________________________________  

Does true objectivity exist in science?

Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe.

I have tried to be as objective as possible on this topic by consulting many references on the matter. To my surprise, none seem to claim that “view from nowhere” objectivity truly exists. Even in physics, it is not pure. But, is objectivity sufficiently objective to give us a general appreciation of reality, most authors that I have consulted think so, while I and a minority of others remain doubtful. Reading all of the references would make for a better discussion, but here are a few highlights. The first one is a very good summary of the whole debate.

“If what is so great about science is its objectivity, then objectivity should be worth defending. The close examinations of scientific practice that philosophers of science have undertaken in the past fifty years have shown, however, that several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

“Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn's analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined.^[5]

When observational data arises which appears to contradict or falsify a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm historically have not immediately rejected it, as Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do. Instead they have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm. Through ad hoc variations to the theory and sympathetic interpretation of the data, supporting scientists will resolve the apparent conundrum. In extreme cases, they may ignore the data altogether. Thus, the failure of a scientific paradigm will go into crisis when a significant portion of scientists working in the field lose confidence in it. The corollary of this observation is that a paradigm is contingent on the social order amongst scientists at the time it gains ascendancy.^[5]

Kuhn's theory has been criticised by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Alan Sokal as presenting a relativist view of scientific progress.^[6][7]”

“In Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective (1988), Donna Haraway argues that objectivity in science and philosophy is traditionally understood as a kind of disembodied and transcendent "conquering gaze from nowhere."^[8]: 581 She argues that this kind of objectivity, in which the subject is split apart and distanced from the object, is an impossible "illusion, a god trick."^{[8]: 583–587} She demands a re-thinking of objectivity in such a way that, while still striving for "faithful accounts of the real world,"^[8]: 579 we must also acknowledge our perspective within the world. She calls this new kind of knowledge-making "situated knowledges." Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see."^{[8]: 581–583}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807

“The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.”

– The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Scientific Objectivity”

“There is no such thing as objectivity. We are all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them.”

― Bones, “The Doctor in the Photo”  

“All the evidence points in the opposite direction: every true description is essentially contextual.”

https://philarchive.org/archive/HALODI-2

“But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.”

https://theconversation.com/quantum-physics-our-study-suggests-objective-reality-doesnt-exist-126805

Many people praise physics for being an “objective” science. In “inferior” sciences like sociology, there is seldom any overall consensus on theories, and things are more open to subjective interpretation. But physics on the other hand is the mature man of the sciences, as it is immune to human biases. After all, it relies on cold hard facts — but how true is that? We often think of physics as a veracious equation handed to us from the sky, but how objective is physics, really? In today’s article, we’ll talk about how the history of physics is riddled with many biases and fallacies that still exist to this day.

https://medium.com/@thisscience1/how-objective-is-physics-4072ae22d207

“Summary: Physics, by which I mean models of how reality works at the most fundamental level, is a subjective endeavor. Physics seems to be objective, but that's because there's high intersubjective consensus about which models best explain and predict reality. Rounding this off to objective causes confusion, and the point generalizes for all seemingly objective things.”

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CEXxRcCcWmuEikgvg/physics-is-ultimately-subjective

 

I cast a shadow on objectivity, on reality garnered from this objectivity, on science and its presumed immunity to subjectivity and the reception of ideas brought about by myself to this forum.

The trouble with these philosophical debates is that they are so often couched in terms of logical absolutes, e.g. “true” vs. “false”, rather than the pragmatic shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life, e.g. “mostly true”, “probably false”, and so on.
 

Sure, no human observation can be stated to be completely , 100%, objective, since for a start we apprehend the world as human beings and cannot do otherwise. Cultural and other assumptions can also on occasion colour the way raw data is construed. But the goal of reproducible scientific observation is to eliminate bias as far as possible and this remains a valid objective, even if it cannot be definitively attained. The scrutiny of research for bias is a process that takes up a fair amount of time in the practice of science.
 

Good science is as objective as we can make it, and over the years that has been good enough. We know that because of the tremendous success of modern science since it took shape after the Renaissance.

 

[Mordred]

 Another good example of scientific objectivity is to look at good quality research papers.

A good quality paper not only presents it's own theory but also includes any counter theories or competing theories and performs an examination of each with regards to accuracy with experimental evidence.

 You also will find numerous papers by other authors simply comparing different models to establish which model is the best fit 

This is one of the many steps in the pursuit of objective examination.

 

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Does true objectivity exist in science?

Hello Luc. 

I agree that the subject of objectivity merits some closer examination and, in my view, updating.

So +1 for doing all that research and introducing the question.

You may, however, find that my answer gives you much to think about.

 

You use of the phrase "true objectivity"   implies that there is, or could be, more than one objectivity or interpretation of the concept, but there is only one 'correct' one.

Nowthe ancient greek philosophers grappled with similar difficulties such as 'perfect' or ideal and infinity.

 

But they never reached  satisfactory conclusions because they were stuck with the notion of 'one correct definition', just as they were stuck with binary logic.
They did, after all,  invent the 'law of the excluded middle'.
We now call this first order logic and distinguish multiple orders of logic.

I suggest that objectivity is another such concept and, as has already been suggested,

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

The trouble with these philosophical debates is that they are so often couched in terms of logical absolutes, e.g. “true” vs. “false”, rather than the pragmatic shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life, e.g. “mostly true”, “probably false”, and so on.

there are scales or shades of objectivity.

 

It is interesting to note that all your quotes and examples refer to historical thought up to the first half of the 20th century.

Up to this time engineers facing a similar problem related to safety used to employ what was called 'a factor of safety' which meant that if the requirement was to carry say 100 tonnes they designed for 100 x a factor of safety greater than 1.

Around 1900 this factor was often 3 or more to reflect the degree of uncertainty they were facing.

They began to realise that things were not cut and dried and that probability has a part to play.

They resolved their issue (unlike the ancient greeks) by the introduction of 'limit state theory'.

The basic tenet of limit state theory is that

"Since all calculations are prone to result in (random) errors we require that the calculation is performed in such as way as to evaluate a known and acceptably low probability of failure"

 

The ancient greeks also thought that there is in general only one way to achieve a 'correct' calculation.

Again we now know better and have updated this notion so for instance structural engineers may now choose from a variety of energy methods, flexibility methods and force-displacement methods for a structure.

Of course they must all come to the same answer, which is comfortingly known as 'the independant check'.  For independant read objective.

 

~A working definition of onjectivity for scientists might be that the result or outcome of a scientific experiment or measurement should not depend upon the observer.

That is John, Janet or Jehosephat should all find the same result when performing the same experiment, with due statictical allowance for the fact that no two experiments are ever exactly the same.

 

[swansont]

Ironic that a post on objectivity is a compilation of some quotes from people have similar thoughts, which is a subjective view. This is a shortcoming of your earlier posts. Opinions aren’t evidence.

The question is moot; as with any endeavor of humans, it will not be perfect, so examples will exist of failures of objectivity, and the real question is (or should be) whether objectivity is a goal, which it is. Asking if true objectivity exists is like asking if frictionless surfaces exist in physics. The answer is trivially “no” but that’s not (IMO) the interesting question

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe.

Who are these some?

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

“Summary: Physics, by which I mean models of how reality works at the most fundamental level, is a subjective endeavor. Physics seems to be objective, but that's because there's high intersubjective consensus about which models best explain and predict reality. Rounding this off to objective causes confusion, and the point generalizes for all seemingly objective things.”

What might be interesting here is to examine these other models that, the author implies, are valid, but haven’t been selected by this consensus, and how the consensus model was not objectively chosen. I’d be very interested to know about them. 

[Luc Turpin]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes.

Science takes measurements. Of light. Of sound. Of pressure. Of temperature. Of reaction times. Of satellites and planetary orbits. Of the path a baseball will take given a specific air resistance, gravitational intensity, and vector. These measurements and the countless many others are ALL objective. 

Of course objectivity exists in science, in much the same way that of course bias exists in your interpretation of it. 

True objectivity does not exist according to all of the authors that I have consulted. None said that it existed. I have tried very hard to find a single article that posits for true objectivity, but have found none. Most articles that I posted present opposite views on certain positions, but the conclusion or conscensus is always the same, it does not exist.

On measurement 

• "We therefore need to ask whether the results of scientific measurements and experiments can be aperspectival. In an important debate in the 1980s and 1990s some commentators answered that question with a resounding “no”, which was then rebutted by others. The debate concerns the so-called “experimenter’s regress” (Collins 1985). Collins, a prominent sociologist of science, claims that in order to know whether an experimental result is correct, one first needs to know whether the apparatus producing the result is reliable. But one doesn’t know whether the apparatus is reliable unless one knows that it produces correct results in the first place and so on and so on ad infinitum."
• "Collins argues that the circle is eventually broken not by the “facts” themselves but rather by factors having to do with the scientist’s career, the social and cognitive interests of his community, and the expected fruitfulness for future work. It is important to note that in Collins’s view these factors do not necessarily make scientific results arbitrary. But what he does argue is that the experimental results do not represent the world according to the absolute conception. Rather, they are produced jointly by the world, scientific apparatuses, and the psychological and sociological factors mentioned above. The facts and phenomena of science are therefore necessarily perspectival."

From here  and I can dig for more on this matter

 

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

1- The trouble with these philosophical debates is that they are so often couched in terms of logical absolutes, e.g. “true” vs. “false”, rather than the pragmatic shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life, e.g. “mostly true”, “probably false”, and so on.
 

2- Sure, no human observation can be stated to be completely , 100%, objective, since for a start we apprehend the world as human beings and cannot do otherwise. Cultural and other assumptions can also on occasion colour the way raw data is construed. But the goal of reproducible scientific observation is to eliminate bias as far as possible and this remains a valid objective, even if it cannot be definitively attained. The scrutiny of research for bias is a process that takes up a fair amount of time in the practice of science.
 

3- Good science is as objective as we can make it, and over the years that has been good enough. We know that because of the tremendous success of modern science since it took shape after the Renaissance.

 

I am not couching my position in terms of "true" vs "false", but that "true" and "false" are false. Its in the shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life. Where we differ is that you state that it is under control and I say that I am not so sure about that. 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

You use of the phrase "true objectivity"   implies that there is, or could be, more than one objectivity or interpretation of the concept, but there is only one 'correct' one.

Just saying at this point in time that "true" objectivity and no objectivity do not exist, but that inded there are many shades of grey.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

A working definition of onjectivity for scientists might be that the result or outcome of a scientific experiment or measurement should not depend upon the observer.

That is John, Janet or Jehosephat should all find the same result when performing the same experiment, with due statictical allowance for the fact that no two experiments are ever exactly the same.

 

If statistical allowance is required to compensate for the fact that no two experiments are ever exaclty the same speaks to my point that even measurement is not 'true" objectivity. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

1- Ironic that a post on objectivity is a compilation of some quotes from people have similar thoughts, which is a subjective view. This is a shortcoming of your earlier posts. Opinions aren’t evidence.

2- The question is moot; as with any endeavor of humans, it will not be perfect, so examples will exist of failures of objectivity, and the real question is (or should be) whether objectivity is a goal, which it is. Asking if true objectivity exists is like asking if frictionless surfaces exist in physics. The answer is trivially “no” but that’s not (IMO) the interesting question

3- Who are these some?

4- What might be interesting here is to examine these other models that, the author implies, are valid, but haven’t been selected by this consensus, and how the consensus model was not objectively chosen. I’d be very interested to know about them. 

1- Tried very hard, but did not find any one stipulating that "true" objectivity exists. If anyone finds any, please bring them to the discussion.

2- Yes, the question of if there is "true" objectivity is moot, but by how much science is in-objective is not. My contention is that the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity

3- iNow

4- I will consider it

 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

 Another good example of scientific objectivity is to look at good quality research papers.

A good quality paper not only presents it's own theory but also includes any counter theories or competing theories and performs an examination of each with regards to accuracy with experimental evidence.

 You also will find numerous papers by other authors simply comparing different models to establish which model is the best fit 

This is one of the many steps in the pursuit of objective examination.

 

This process takes care of biases between models, but what about those having divergent worldviews?

 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- iNow

I said nothing about mathematical relationships. I intentionally did not mention that. 

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- Tried very hard, but did not find any one stipulating that "true" objectivity exists. If anyone finds any, please bring them to the discussion.

2- Yes, the question of if there is "true" objectivity is moot, but by how much science is in-objective is not.

You appear to be missing the connection between 1 and 2

 

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

My contention is that the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity

And this is where you need to present evidence, rather just make an assertion 

 

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- iNow

I don’t see where iNow has said that the “pure form” of objectivity exists

 

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Most articles that I posted present opposite views on certain positions, but the conclusion or conscensus is always the same, it does not exist.

On measurement 

• "We therefore need to ask whether the results of scientific measurements and experiments can be aperspectival. In an important debate in the 1980s and 1990s some commentators answered that question with a resounding “no”, which was then rebutted by others. The debate concerns the so-called “experimenter’s regress” (Collins 1985). Collins, a prominent sociologist of science, claims that in order to know whether an experimental result is correct, one first needs to know whether the apparatus producing the result is reliable. But one doesn’t know whether the apparatus is reliable unless one knows that it produces correct results in the first place and so on and so on ad infinitum."

 

One of the unsatisfying aspects of this presentation is the lack of specifics. Which experiments are being referenced here? What measurements? What apparatus?

One approach to this “bootstrapping” problem is to have standards used as calibrations. Another elements is the recognition of experimental uncertainty, which is why you see error bars on the results. But without detail, it’s a guessing game as to what they are referring to. 

What kind of expertise does a sociologist of science have in this regard?

 

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

• "Collins argues that the circle is eventually broken not by the “facts” themselves but rather by factors having to do with the scientist’s career, the social and cognitive interests of his community, and the expected fruitfulness for future work. It is important to note that in Collins’s view these factors do not necessarily make scientific results arbitrary. But what he does argue is that the experimental results do not represent the world according to the absolute conception. Rather, they are produced jointly by the world, scientific apparatuses, and the psychological and sociological factors mentioned above. The facts and phenomena of science are therefore necessarily perspectival."

Rebutting such a vague assertion is hard, but one glaring omission here is the fact that other scientists will try to replicate experiments, and/or other experiments will rely on the measurements. The focus on one scientist is wrong.

I will reiterate the need for evidence rather than quote mining. This is something that got you in trouble before, and you’re not fixing it.

[Mordred]

50 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

This process takes care of biases between models, but what about those having divergent worldviews?

 

It might help to consider that any complex problem can always become understood once you break that complex problem down into manageable smaller problems.

 So to ask how the scientific method deals with worldviews isn't something that's easy to define.  In one regards all theories and models are typically interconnected with other theories. You can readily learn those connections by studying the mathematical proofs of a given equation.

Secondly it's typical for a given theory to deal with specific states/systems/mixtures etc rather than any worldview.

This is true regardless of field of science the vast majority of theories deal with specific systems etc rather than a worldviews or all inclusive into one theory. However they are always interconnected with other relevant theories. In terms of objectivity cross examinations are an essential tool used to improve objectivity.

 At all scientific levels as cross examinations is common to even metaphysical theories. Naturally the scientific method cannot afford to ignore Any counter evidence. So any good theory deals also with any  counter evidence as it presents itself. So a robust theory will typically improve as new research including counter research presents itself.

 If a theory cannot counter a piece of evidence then there is something inherently wrong with the theory.

Edited September 9 by Mordred

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

If statistical allowance is required to compensate for the fact that no two experiments are ever exaclty the same speaks to my point that even measurement is not 'true" objectivity. 

Uncertainty is inherent and is not evidence that objectivity is lacking. Noise exists. The uncertainty principle exists. You’re demanding an ideal system, and that’s not what happens in the real world

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

This process takes care of biases between models, but what about those having divergent worldviews?

Can you give an example of science where you have divergent worldviews?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

True objectivity does not exist according to all of the authors that I have consulted. None said that it existed. I have tried very hard to find a single article that posits for true objectivity, but have found none. Most articles that I posted present opposite views on certain positions, but the conclusion or conscensus is always the same, it does not exist.

I suggest you read up on at least two philosophical subjects before drawing  a conclusion of a failed search. The first is the overarching subject of scientific realism. It is in itself a fairly complex subject but your assertion it is no-existent, does certainly not reflect anything near a consensus. There are certainly approaches that either dismiss or qualify it, such as social constructivism, and empiricism. Though often it is less a criticism on the existence of an objective reality, but rather the assertion that reality is, evenmin the best case, not accessible and can be seen as a critique on realism, rather than reality. However, many areas of antirealism were eventually abandoned (to my knowledge). In fact, you may want to refer the positivism dispute in the 60s-70s. My memory is somewhat hazy (and others might want to chime in), and I am not sure what the current thought on antirealism is, though the critical elements I was interested did not seem to have continued tractions. Rather another branch of realism became important.

Here, I suggest that you read up at least on  structural realism. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x

Quote

The main argument for scientific realism is that our present theories in science are so successful empirically that they can't have got that way by chance - instead they must somehow have latched onto the blueprint of the universe. The main argument against scientific realism is that there have been enormously successful theories which were once accepted but are now regarded as false. The central question addressed in this paper is whether there is some reasonable way to have the best of both worlds: to give the argument from scientific revolutions its full weight and yet still adopt some sort of realist attitude towards presently accepted theories in physics and elsewhere. I argue that there is such a way - through structural realism, a position adopted by Poincare, and here elaborated and defended.

 

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

 

I am not couching my position in terms of "true" vs "false", but that "true" and "false" are false. Its in the shades of grey that all of us actually deal with in real life. Where we differ is that you state that it is under control and I say that I am not so sure about that. 

 

Just saying at this point in time that "true" objectivity and no objectivity do not exist, but that inded there are many shades of grey.

 

 

 

 

Ah, but you are shifting your ground now. Your opening post was entirely about the philosophical impossibility of achieving total, complete, objectivity. You and I agree on that, evidently. But now you introduce the concept of "control", which I did not mention. All I said was that the evidence is that the degree of objectivity science has achieved has historically been good enough for science to have been enormously successful at accounting for what we observe in nature. (The quote @CharonY provides makes the same point.)

But now you say I think objectivity in science "is (i.e. in the present day) under control", whereas you doubt that it is. This seems to be a quite different question, about the efficacy of the means we use today for checking, controlling bias and weeding out bad science. We can move on to discuss that if you like but it has nothing to do with philosophy. 

Edited September 9 by exchemist

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

14 hours ago, studiot said:

You use of the phrase "true objectivity"   implies that there is, or could be, more than one objectivity or interpretation of the concept, but there is only one 'correct' one.

Just saying at this point in time that "true" objectivity and no objectivity do not exist, but that inded there are many shades of grey.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

A working definition of onjectivity for scientists might be that the result or outcome of a scientific experiment or measurement should not depend upon the observer.

That is John, Janet or Jehosephat should all find the same result when performing the same experiment, with due statictical allowance for the fact that no two experiments are ever exactly the same.

 

If statistical allowance is required to compensate for the fact that no two experiments are ever exaclty the same speaks to my point that even measurement is not 'true" objectivity. 

This is a discussion site.

 

If that is the depth of your discussion I take it you don't really want to discuss my chain of reasoning, just pontificate.

Or maybe I didn't explain the chain of reasoning very well, you certainly didn't respond to it.

[Luc Turpin]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

I said nothing about mathematical relationships. I intentionally did not mention that. 

I realized after the fact that this could be misconstrued as opening a closed thread, so I will leave it at that. I do not believe it does so as it did not touch upon the main theme of the closed thread (just borrowed an element) nor did it relate to the reason for closing the thread. And I could have misinterpreted iNow's thought process.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

You appear to be missing the connection between 1 and 2

Please substantiate; the only thing coming to mind is that you may be aluding to the fact that no one is saying that true objectivity exists and the "mootness" of the topic. But, I had to start somewhere and chose the beginning. 

12 hours ago, swansont said:

And this is where you need to present evidence, rather just make an assertion 

The only "evidence" that I can bring to the table is that some, not many, share my assertion. 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/why-materialism-is-false-and-why-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-mind/5DC675B901E2F68E82643B88EE468EAE

And I want to be cautious here, because I am reitroducing the topic of mind; so I will not go beyond this.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t see where iNow has said that the “pure form” of objectivity exists

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes.

Yes, to the question "Does true objectivity exist in science?"

 

12 hours ago, swansont said:

I will reiterate the need for evidence rather than quote mining. This is something that got you in trouble before, and you’re not fixing it.

I might be mistaken, but the kind of  "hard" evidence that you are requesting is, well, hard to find for a debate about a broad theme such as objectivity in science.  Again, the only thing that I can bring to the table are some that share my same concern. And does it not make a difference that I am in philosophy rather than a pure science thread? You seem to be asking that I deal with this contention of mine as if it were planets revolving around stars, which it is not. I can only bring what others think about the subject matter. If this is insufficient than I shall cease and desist. 

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

It might help to consider that any complex problem can always become understood once you break that complex problem down into manageable smaller problems.

 So to ask how the scientific method deals with worldviews isn't something that's easy to define.  In one regards all theories and models are typically interconnected with other theories. You can readily learn those connections by studying the mathematical proofs of a given equation.

Secondly it's typical for a given theory to deal with specific states/systems/mixtures etc rather than any worldview.

This is true regardless of field of science the vast majority of theories deal with specific systems etc rather than a worldviews or all inclusive into one theory. However they are always interconnected with other relevant theories. In terms of objectivity cross examinations are an essential tool used to improve objectivity.

 At all scientific levels as cross examinations is common to even metaphysical theories. Naturally the scientific method cannot afford to ignore Any counter evidence. So any good theory deals also with any  counter evidence as it presents itself. So a robust theory will typically improve as new research including counter research presents itself.

 If a theory cannot counter a piece of evidence then there is something inherently wrong with the theory.

I am all fine with what you are saying. In fact, you know more than me in this area.

But, I am still itching to ask you this: did the worlview come first then science built around a worlview or was it science through all of the experimentation done that brought about the conclusion that the world was materialist and mechanistic?

Notwitstanding what is being said above in your post, is it still possible that a particular worldview is tainting the process?

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Uncertainty is inherent and is not evidence that objectivity is lacking. Noise exists. The uncertainty principle exists. You’re demanding an ideal system, and that’s not what happens in the real world

I am entirely in agreement with your statement.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you give an example of science where you have divergent worldviews?

No I cannot, because other worlviews than a materialst one are rarely being considered in science.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

I suggest you read up on at least two philosophical subjects before drawing  a conclusion of a failed search. The first is the overarching subject of scientific realism. It is in itself a fairly complex subject but your assertion it is no-existent, does certainly not reflect anything near a consensus. There are certainly approaches that either dismiss or qualify it, such as social constructivism, and empiricism. Though often it is less a criticism on the existence of an objective reality, but rather the assertion that reality is, evenmin the best case, not accessible and can be seen as a critique on realism, rather than reality. However, many areas of antirealism were eventually abandoned (to my knowledge). In fact, you may want to refer the positivism dispute in the 60s-70s. My memory is somewhat hazy (and others might want to chime in), and I am not sure what the current thought on antirealism is, though the critical elements I was interested did not seem to have continued tractions. Rather another branch of realism became important.

Here, I suggest that you read up at least on  structural realism. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x

 

I am only stating that "true" objectivity does not exist. I am not saying that scientific realism is wrong. In fact I agree with it. 

Again, what science has uncovered about reality is the best that we have so far.

Beyond objectivity, my contention, and it is only a contention that I cannot prove is that the camel might have been brought to the materialist water hole rather than the camel finding it himself.

I cannot prove my contention, but can we really prove the opposite? That it found water by itself?

I agree that this might be very naive of me askiing, but I guess sometimes stupid questions are revealing about the nature of science.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Ah, but you are shifting your ground now. Your opening post was entirely about the philosophical impossibility of achieving total, complete, objectivity. You and I agree on that, evidently. But now you introduce the concept of "control", which I did not mention.

Then sorry, I misunderstood.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

All I said was that the evidence is that the degree of objectivity science has achieved has historically been good enough for science to have been enormously successful at accounting for what we observe in nature. (The quote @CharonY provides makes the same point.)

Entirely agree with your statement and with @CharonY on this matter.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

But now you say I think objectivity in science "is (i.e. in the present day) under control", whereas you doubt that it is. This seems to be a quite different question, about the efficacy of the means we use today for checking, controlling bias and weeding out bad science. We can move on to discuss that if you like but it has nothing to do with philosophy. 

This section of your quote forced me to think hard as you were showing a possible contradiction of mine in asserting that science is good, but objectivity might not be under control. I will respond by saying that Individually, each science experiment is sound. It is when all of those are put together to claim that we live a materialist-mechanistic world that objectivity might be missing.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

This is a discussion site.

 

If that is the depth of your discussion I take it you don't really want to discuss my chain of reasoning, just pontificate.

Or maybe I didn't explain the chain of reasoning very well, you certainly didn't respond to it.

Appologies to you studiot for I am trying to discuss as best as I can, and maybe I am not up to the task.

I am not the type to pontificate.

I am trying my best with the time available to me and the number of responses that I am getting.

I get lazy sometimes.

I went back to your original post and my response and thought that I at least responded to your main points.

Please show me where I missed something?

 

 

Science gives a good picture of reality, but a limited one!

Edited September 9 by Luc Turpin

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Uncertainty is inherent and is not evidence that objectivity is lacking. Noise exists. The uncertainty principle exists. You’re demanding an ideal system, and that’s not what happens in the real world

I responded that i agreed with the statement, but should have added except for the last sentence.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I responded that i agreed with the statement, but should have added except for the last sentence.

Which part? That you’re demanding an ideal system (which is what perfect implies) or that it’s not what happens in the real world?

[Luc Turpin]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Uncertainty is inherent and is not evidence that objectivity is lacking. Noise exists. The uncertainty principle exists. You’re demanding an ideal system, and that’s not what happens in the real world

I agree that uncertainty is inherent and not evidence that objectivity is lacking; that noise exists; that the uncertainty principle exists.

I am not in agreement though that I am demanding an ideal system. To the contrary, I believe this to not be possible.

I believe that with non-existent "true" objectivity, we are still doing a great job in science.

What I am questionning though is that with objective limitations, with even the checks and balances in science, with human bias given as a given and with the fact that reality also includes a subjective nature for which science cannot deal with, are we not premature in stating that fundamentally the world is materialistic and machanistic?

Again the picture given by science of reality is good, but maybe incomplete and limited.

I wish that someday, folks at this forum stop saying that I am against science; I am not!

Just want to point out that there may be fault in saying based solely on science that the material world is all that we get.

The material world exists, but something more may be lurking behind the curtain unattainable by science.

 

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The material world exists, but something more may be lurking behind the curtain unattainable by science.

In what universe? 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Entirely agree with your statement and with @CharonY on this matter.

This section of your quote forced me to think hard as you were showing a possible contradiction of mine in asserting that science is good, but objectivity might not be under control. I will respond by saying that Individually, each science experiment is sound. It is when all of those are put together to claim that we live a materialist-mechanistic world that objectivity might be missing.

 

Hmm. I'm now a little unclear as to where you are going with your arguments.

We've agreed that perfect objectivity in science is not possible in practice.

I argue that, imperfect though objectivity in science may well be, it has worked fairly well up to now (i.e. has given us successful predictive models of nature).

Please note I do not argue that there is no bad science. There is plenty: more today than ever before in fact, due to the huge numbers of working researchers we have nowadays and the way they are pressured to publish all the time. There is even fraud (made up data and so forth). However this is an issue of quality control, rather than insufficient objectivity.   

But in this last post of yours you seem to be going in yet another direction: questioning a claim that "we live in a materialist-mechanistic world". This is a metaphysical position that some (many) people take, but is not required by science. I would draw your attention to the distinction between the methodological naturalism of science with physicalism, which is a worldview, i.e.metaphysical, and as such not required by science. Science is the study of nature. Plenty of scientific people think there is more to the world (in the sense of human experience) than nature.   

 

Edited September 9 by exchemist

[iNow]

Don't want to derail the thread, Luc, but do want to thank you for using the quote function more effectively... selecting the text to which you're specifically responding, replying, then selecting the next section for the next response. It makes a huge difference in the ability to follow the discussion, so genuine massive kudos there. Very much appreciated

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Appologies to you studiot for I am trying to discuss as best as I can, and maybe I am not up to the task.

I am not the type to pontificate.

I am trying my best with the time available to me and the number of responses that I am getting.

I get lazy sometimes.

I went back to your original post and my response and thought that I at least responded to your main points.

Please show me where I missed something?

 

 

Science gives a good picture of reality, but a limited one!

Apology accepted.

But I'm afraid that you missed my main points entirely.

 

I think your use of the word objective and its derivatives is too wide and too general.

I suggested that the meaning and use has changed over the millenia (did you miss my references to the ancient greeks?).

I further suggested that there has been a tightening to the definition in more recent times as a result of practical considerations.

But you have not provided us with a working definition ie one that I can apply to any situation.

So here is a simple question to discuss about this issue.

Consider the following situation:

I am reading a magazine and see on some page the following address

15 High Street

Anytown

What is the objectivity involved in this reading ?

 

I think (though I may be wrong) that you answer could go a long way towards tightening up this discussion as swansont asks, rather than keeping veering off along every tangent that arises.

 

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Don't want to derail the thread, Luc, but do want to thank you for using the quote function more effectively... selecting the text to which you're specifically responding, replying, then selecting the next section for the next response. It makes a huge difference in the ability to follow the discussion, so genuine massive kudos there. Very much appreciated

+1

[Mordred]

Here is a useful example in regards to the scientific method.

Using math (I won't bother with the specific formulas) when estimating DM distribution based on the viral theorem for gaussian distribution. 

 The first order equations are used. The second order equations led to higher inaccuracy so the second order equations are not being used. 

This was checked by observational evidence. So even with the same methodology higher order equations can often lead to higher error margins (which is very typical ) 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

In what universe? 

In our own universe.

It's all of the subjecitive going on about in this world that science can not adequatly explore because of the tools that it uses.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not in agreement though that I am demanding an ideal system. To the contrary, I believe this to not be possible.

So perfect objectivity is not an ideal system? What improvement beyond perfection is required in order for it to be ideal?

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

What I am questionning though is that with objective limitations, with even the checks and balances in science, with human bias given as a given and with the fact that reality also includes a subjective nature for which science cannot deal with,

I thought we covered this in a previous thread. We can deal with subjectivity in certain cases, as had been discussed

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

are we not premature in stating that fundamentally the world is materialistic and machanistic?

So far as science is concerned, no. When you have evidence that science fails* owing to these assumptions it could be revisited. But you persist in not presenting evidence that would cause us to question it. 

* not having an answer yet is not a failure of science. There is no credible claim that science has answered everything.

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The only "evidence" that I can bring to the table is that some, not many, share my assertion. 

That’s no evidence at all.

If you contend that “the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity” you’d better be able to present examples of this, and also make the case that they are representative of the problem and not isolated exceptions.