Science and Objectivity

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

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 am not good at riddles, so I will keep it simple in the hope that I do not look too foolish in my answer: 15 high Street provides some objective information while Anytown provides less. Science wants to transform Anytowns into 15 High Streets.

To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it.

A stand alone star is an objective entity until someone starts measuring it and determining what the measurement results mean.

Object dependence of subject opens the door to bias and the main bias for me is the interpretation of science that the world is a meterialistic one; that I guess is where I lose everyone except me.

 

1 hour 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

Thanks for the +1, but I am not doing very well in conveying my frame of thought.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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

Perfect objectivity is an ideal system, but both perfect objectivity and ideal systems are  unattainable in this world.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

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 ) 

You are transforming Anytows into 15 high Streets (see above) and checking for high precision through observation. Then, what is the perceived meaning of all of this? When you go down this path, you create a dependent link between object and observer.

Note: I may very be well out to lunch with what I am saying, but I can assure you that all of this thinking is giving me a big headache.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Perfect objectivity is an ideal system, but both perfect objectivity and ideal systems are  unattainable in this world.

This was what I said, but you said you disagreed with it. You added a post specifically to say so.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not good at riddles, so I will keep it simple in the hope that I do not look too foolish in my answer: 15 high Street provides some objective information while Anytown provides less. Science wants to transform Anytowns into 15 High Streets.

To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it.

A stand alone star is an objective entity until someone starts measuring it and determining what the measurement results mean.

Object dependence of subject opens the door to bias and the main bias for me is the interpretation of science that the world is a meterialistic one; that I guess is where I lose everyone except me.

 

 

 

You are transforming Anytows into 15 high Streets (see above) and checking for high precision through observation. Then, what is the perceived meaning of all of this? When you go down this path, you create a dependent link between object and observer.

Note: I may very be well out to lunch with what I am saying, but I can assure you that all of this thinking is giving me a big headache.

My question was not a riddle, nor intended to catch anyone out.

It was intended to show that when you try to look at it, some situations are not amenable to the objective / subjective classification.

I have seen the Hight St / Anytown construction on example form filling and also advertisements.

Objective / subjective is just not relevant to this.

So thank you for replying, all I really wanted was your answer, which I think, amply demonstrates my point that the classification objective / subjective is not relevant to every situation.

 

But you are asking specifically about the scientific aspects of this and so here is a scientific question.

What is the boiling point of water ?

Answer

If I am sitting in my bivouac on top of Mt Everest, making the tea it is about 70^oC.

If I am sitting on my boat in Plymouth Marina, making the tea, the answer is about 100^oC.

So is that subjective or objective ?

Again I say that the situation is not really amenable to the classification.

 

I gave you a working definition, for scientific purposes, in an earlier post.
This has the advantage of not having to rely on presumption or existence, which is another iffy word for scientific purposes.

On 9/8/2024 at 8:18 PM, 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.

And yet if you try to apply it to my tea making you run into trouble.

Edited September 9 by studiot

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

You are transforming Anytows into 15 high Streets (see above) and checking for high precision through observation. Then, what is the perceived meaning of all of this? When you go down this path, you create a dependent link between object and observer.

Note: I may very be well out to lunch with what I am saying, but I can assure you that all of this thinking is giving me a big headache.

Let's try a simpler example then you have some system. When you describe the velocity terms (first order ) you have some error margin but it's acceptable. (It's never 100 percent) now on that same system you want to add accelerations which involve force terms (second order) your accuracy will naturally decrease.

As you increase to third order (stress/shear) the problem progressively gets more and more inaccurate. 

All the above it's literally unavoidable its a natural consequence all you can do is minimize the error margins.

This is also one of the dangers with having too many degrees of freedom in the same integrals. 

So accuracy is best achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation.

[swansont]

On 9/8/2024 at 7:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

3- iNow

Two problems here.

1. iNow posted after your statement, so you cannot have had that post in mind when you made your claim.

2. It’s clear from the context that iNow interpreted it to mean “are there examples of science being objective” and gave some. i.e. objectivity exists. But the tone of your posts is that objectivity isn’t universal, i.e. there are examples where objectivity is lacking. There’s no conflict between these positions.

[Mordred]

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 but I can assure you that all of this thinking is giving me a big headache.

Well here is another challenge to add to the proverbial headache.

Let's say your comparing two or more methodologies to describe a class or category of systems. Ie galaxies /plasma clouds/ hydrodynamic systems etc.

Lets say theory B makes better predictions to  certain subcategories (example one class of galaxy) than theory A but theory A makes better predictions than theory B in other subclasses.

How does one objectively determine which is better theory A or theory B for an all inclusive theory ?

 For higher accuracy the theory best suited for the specific system should be the one used. This is one of the fundamental challenges in science it's the choosing of the best fit for a specific system. Far too often one wants to use one theory on all subsystems in a given study however if one wants higher accuracy this isn't always possible.

 So in this case higher  accuracy is achievable by using multiple competing theories in the same study. 

Edited September 10 by Mordred

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not good at riddles, so I will keep it simple in the hope that I do not look too foolish in my answer: 15 high Street provides some objective information while Anytown provides less. Science wants to transform Anytowns into 15 High Streets.

To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it.

A stand alone star is an objective entity until someone starts measuring it and determining what the measurement results mean.

Object dependence of subject opens the door to bias and the main bias for me is the interpretation of science that the world is a meterialistic one; that I guess is where I lose everyone except me.

Again with the religious and spiritual argument's, science just wants to understand what it can; the bias is a people thing, it affects us all in our opinion's about things we don't really understand.

What bible do you follow? We all have one, including me, but some of us learn to see their's for what they are, a tool to lift us beyond, both materialistic and spiritualistic world's and into a utopia, where it doesn't really matter.

There's no such thing as a stand alone star, it will always be affected by gravity no matter how far away it is.

You should read  more of the poem in my signature, just google it for a link... 🙏

[Luc Turpin]

17 hours ago, studiot said:

My question was not a riddle, nor intended to catch anyone out.

It was intended to show that when you try to look at it, some situations are not amenable to the objective / subjective classification.

I have seen the Hight St / Anytown construction on example form filling and also advertisements.

Objective / subjective is just not relevant to this.

So thank you for replying, all I really wanted was your answer, which I think, amply demonstrates my point that the classification objective / subjective is not relevant to every situation.

 

But you are asking specifically about the scientific aspects of this and so here is a scientific question.

What is the boiling point of water ?

Answer

If I am sitting in my bivouac on top of Mt Everest, making the tea it is about 70^oC.

If I am sitting on my boat in Plymouth Marina, making the tea, the answer is about 100^oC.

So is that subjective or objective ?

Again I say that the situation is not really amenable to the classification.

 

I gave you a working definition, for scientific purposes, in an earlier post.
This has the advantage of not having to rely on presumption or existence, which is another iffy word for scientific purposes.

And yet if you try to apply it to my tea making you run into trouble.

Not only does perfect objectivity not exist, but that "some situations are not amenable to the objective/subjective classification". The boiling point example makes this very clear and your definition is in line with this. As for my own definition, I believe that it goes in the same direction as it stipulates that there is no independence between object and subject.

Am-I correct in my statement that this makes our world less predicable, thereby less "clockwork-mechanical"?

18 hours ago, swansont said:

This was what I said, but you said you disagreed with it. You added a post specifically to say so.

I disagreed that "I" was demanding an ideal system. "I" am not demanding an ideal system as there is no such thing as an ideal system in the real world.

22 hours ago, exchemist said:

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.   

 

We "agree that perfect objectivity in science is not possible in practice."

We agree that, "imperfect though objectivity in science may well be, it has worked fairly well up to now"

Agree "that there is bad science out there."

And very happy to hear you say that science can be done without the claim that "we live in a materialist-mechanistic world"

I have been arguing this from the very beginning.

"Some (many)" take what they conceive as science's apparent objective and overall perfectibility as a sign that we live in such a world. 

I am not even denying that space, time, energy and matter exist, which would be foolish onto itself, but that there may be more to the story than that; and that limiting our scope of the world to a contextual materialist-mechanical worldview is unnecessary and even harmful in keeping an open mind about things.

As for methodological naturalism, I agree that religious commitments have no relevance within science, but religion has had an impact, both positively and negatively, in the world, and this cannot be denied.

As for physicalism, I should have used it instead of materialism.

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

Let's try a simpler example then you have some system. When you describe the velocity terms (first order ) you have some error margin but it's acceptable. (It's never 100 percent) now on that same system you want to add accelerations which involve force terms (second order) your accuracy will naturally decrease.

As you increase to third order (stress/shear) the problem progressively gets more and more inaccurate. 

All the above it's literally unavoidable its a natural consequence all you can do is minimize the error margins.

This is also one of the dangers with having too many degrees of freedom in the same integrals. 

So accuracy is best achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation.

So you are equating precision to objectivity and stating that some sense of objectivity "can be achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation"?

My neophyte-generalist nature of mine would also would push things further and state that science is indeed not as an exact science as some might make it to be.

And that this has implications on the nature of science as a whole and/or the nature of the world as a whole.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Two problems here.

1. iNow posted after your statement, so you cannot have had that post in mind when you made your claim.

2. It’s clear from the context that iNow interpreted it to mean “are there examples of science being objective” and gave some. i.e. objectivity exists. But the tone of your posts is that objectivity isn’t universal, i.e. there are examples where objectivity is lacking. There’s no conflict between these positions.

1. The "2+2=4" comment came from another thread before my statement.

2. In this context then I agree that "there's no conflict between these positions".

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Well here is another challenge to add to the proverbial headache.

Let's say your comparing two or more methodologies to describe a class or category of systems. Ie galaxies /plasma clouds/ hydrodynamic systems etc.

Lets say theory B makes better predictions to  certain subcategories (example one class of galaxy) than theory A but theory A makes better predictions than theory B in other subclasses.

How does one objectively determine which is better theory A or theory B for an all inclusive theory ?

 For higher accuracy the theory best suited for the specific system should be the one used. This is one of the fundamental challenges in science it's the choosing of the best fit for a specific system. Far too often one wants to use one theory on all subsystems in a given study however if one wants higher accuracy this isn't always possible.

 So in this case higher  accuracy is achievable by using multiple competing theories in the same study. 

The most important point that I am getting here is the fact that multiple competing theories are used to study the reality of this world.

I was not aware of that.

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

1- Again with the religious and spiritual argument's, science just wants to understand what it can; the bias is a people thing, it affects us all in our opinion's about things we don't really understand.

2- What bible do you follow? We all have one, including me, but some of us learn to see their's for what they are, a tool to lift us beyond, both materialistic and spiritualistic world's and into a utopia, where it doesn't really matter.

3-There's no such thing as a stand alone star, it will always be affected by gravity no matter how far away it is.

4-You should read  more of the poem in my signature, just google it for a link... 🙏

1- How is my statement a religious and spiritual one? the rest I agree.

2- I do not know if I have a bibble, but my quest is trying to answer if there is more to this world than what science tells us.

3- Indeed, there is no such thing as a stand alone star; I gave it as an example of something that is getting close to being stand alone

4- A bigger segement of it "PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that head which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again, for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness."

 

 

Edited September 10 by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I do not know if I have a bibble, but my quest is trying to answer if there is more to this world than what science tell us.

Why do you care?

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Why do you care?

Good question; need to think about that one.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I disagreed that "I" was demanding an ideal system. "I" am not demanding an ideal system as there is no such thing as an ideal system in the real world.

To require complete objectivity is to demand an ideal system.

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

my quest is trying to answer if there is more to this world than what science tells us.

What is the connection to objectivity? 

[Luc Turpin]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

1-To require complete objectivity is to demand an ideal system.

2- What is the connection to objectivity? 

1- I do not request nor require "complete objectivity nor "demand an ideal system". It is what it is, but science seems at times to give the impression that perfect objectivity is attainable and that science is the one and only "ideal" system at contemplating reality,

2- If the world was a purely objective object, then there would be nothing else left to explore. 

[exchemist]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

We "agree that perfect objectivity in science is not possible in practice."

We agree that, "imperfect though objectivity in science may well be, it has worked fairly well up to now"

Agree "that there is bad science out there."

And very happy to hear you say that science can be done without the claim that "we live in a materialist-mechanistic world"

I have been arguing this from the very beginning.

"Some (many)" take what they conceive as science's apparent objective and overall perfectibility as a sign that we live in such a world. 

I am not even denying that space, time, energy and matter exist, which would be foolish onto itself, but that there may be more to the story than that; and that limiting our scope of the world to a contextual materialist-mechanical worldview is unnecessary and even harmful in keeping an open mind about things.

As for methodological naturalism, I agree that religious commitments have no relevance within science, but religion has had an impact, both positively and negatively, in the world, and this cannot be denied.

As for physicalism, I should have used it instead of materialism.

 

 

 

OK but be a bit careful here. While science can certainly be done without claiming that we live in a materialist-mechanical world, anyone who does science must always apply the principle of methodological naturalism to any scientific work. Claiming supernatural intervention can never be part of a scientific explanation or description of nature. Scientists may well hold beliefs beyond simple physicalism, but they cannot introduce non-natural ideas into science. Such ideas simply do not belong there.  

[Luc Turpin]

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK but be a bit careful here. While science can certainly be done without claiming that we live in a materialist-mechanical world, anyone who does science must always apply the principle of methodological naturalism to any scientific work. Claiming supernatural intervention can never be part of a scientific explanation or description of nature. Scientists may well hold beliefs beyond simple physicalism, but they cannot introduce non-natural ideas into science. Such ideas simply do not belong there.  

While applying the principle of methodological naturalism and without supernatural intervention, "what if" science brings us beyond space, time, energy and matter?

And what is that "what if" if there is a "what if" can be dealt separately in another venue than science.

I am being very careful here, because I am supposed to bring this up only in the Speculation section of the forum, but this is my contention with mind. That there is something more than a piece of brain involved in the mental transaction. Or the thing with individual ants having a mind of their own. Or plants having it too. I will go no further, because of what I just stated. I will only add that physicalism is maybe what is holding back some from contemplating other avenues for mind, ants and plants.

 

Edited September 10 by Luc Turpin

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

While applying the principle of methodological naturalism and without supernatural intervention, "what if" science brings us beyond space, time, energy and matter?

And what is that "what if" if there is a "what if" can be dealt separately in another venue than science.

I am being very careful here, because I am supposed to bring this up only in the Speculation section of the forum, but this is my contention with mind. That there is something more than a piece of brain involved in the mental transaction. Or the thing with individual ants having a mind of their own. Or plants having it too. I will go no further, because of what I just stated. I will only add that physicalism is maybe what is holding back some from contemplating other avenues for mind, ants and plants.

 

Since science is the study of nature, I cannot envisage how it can ever "bring us beyond" space, time, energy and matter, as I can't see how there could be any observations of nature that are "beyond" such things. Even the mathematics we use to model mature is expressed in terms of properties of matter and radiation, as functions of space and time. 

My personal view of "mind" - and it is only a personal view - is that most people are conditioned by centuries of Cartesian dualism into making a category error: that of thinking that the mind is an entity. It seems to me, by analogy with how computers work, that the mind is not an entity but an activity: an activity of the brain. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- I do not request nor require "complete objectivity nor "demand an ideal system". It is what it is, but science seems at times to give the impression that perfect objectivity is attainable and that science is the one and only "ideal" system at contemplating reality,

By raising this issue, you are indeed requesting it.

”science” is a very vague reference. Where, specifically, does this impression come from? 

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- If the world was a purely objective object, then there would be nothing else left to explore. 

Seriously? If the world were purely objective, cro-magnon man would have understood quantum mechanics?

What is your definition of objective?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am being very careful here, because I am supposed to bring this up only in the Speculation section of the forum, but this is my contention with mind. That there is something more than a piece of brain involved in the mental transaction.

You aren’t being careful enough. At the very least you are repeating the error of extrapolating a tiny sliver of science to science as a whole, and you fail to present any evidence.

Your vague dissatisfaction isn’t evidence.

You can take this script and say you think there are ghosts, or that bigfoot exists, or aliens walk among us. If you have no evidence, don’t bring it up. It’s required. 

[Mordred]

The point I'm making is that in order to get the best accuracy one cannot necessarily stick with any favorite or preferred theory.

 So its best to be able to use whichever theory outside of any preference that works best with a given system.

Nor is it realistic to use the same equation to describe all possible interactions that can occur. 

A good example is the standard model Langrangian which is a little over a page Long. Your far better off using the portions applicable and reduce the equation to simply the relevant portions of the system being described.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

1- Since science is the study of nature, I cannot envisage how it can ever "bring us beyond" space, time, energy and matter, as I can't see how there could be any observations of nature that are "beyond" such things. Even the mathematics we use to model mature is expressed in terms of properties of matter and radiation, as functions of space and time. 

2- My personal view of "mind" - and it is only a personal view - is that most people are conditioned by centuries of Cartesian dualism into making a category error: that of thinking that the mind is an entity. It seems to me, by analogy with how computers work, that the mind is not an entity but an activity: an activity of the brain. 

1- My point is "what if" nature has more than space, time, energy and matter to offer? Do we not investigate it, because it is beyond "set" parameters? And I raise the "what if" not just to do so, but because of recent findings that, I contend, do not square well with a physicalist interpretation of the world. I know too little of the mathematical model of nature to determine whether or not it is amendable to more than properties of matter and radiation and functions of space and time.

2- With some of the more recent research findings, I respectfully beg to differ on your views about mind.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1- By raising this issue, you are indeed requesting it.

2- ”science” is a very vague reference. Where, specifically, does this impression come from? 

 

3- Seriously? If the world were purely objective, cro-magnon man would have understood quantum mechanics?

4- What is your definition of objective?

5- ou aren’t being careful enough. At the very least you are repeating the error of extrapolating a tiny sliver of science to science as a whole, and you fail to present any evidence.

6- our vague dissatisfaction isn’t evidence.

7- You can take this script and say you think there are ghosts, or that bigfoot exists, or aliens walk among us. If you have no evidence, don’t bring it up. It’s required. 

1- I disagree with your statement

2- Have you ever heard that science is based on objectivity?.....that the pure sciences are "objective" while applied ones, much less "objective"?.

3- Precision -  "If the world was a purely objective object, then there would be nothing else left to explore beyond the objective realm. So, cro-magnon person would not have understood quantum mechanics and would have to find that out.

4- As stated in a previous post on this thread - "To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it."

5- I present evidence and you say it is not! 

6- My vague dissatisfaction is based on evidence and my dissatisfaction is shared by many that I have referenced, have looked at the same evidence and concluded as I did, that maybe something unconventionnal is going on.

7- What is your definition of evidence and what disqualifies my "evidence" as not being evidence?

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

1-The point I'm making is that in order to get the best accuracy one cannot necessarily stick with any favorite or preferred theory.

 2-So its best to be able to use whichever theory outside of any preference that works best with a given system.

3-Nor is it realistic to use the same equation to describe all possible interactions that can occur. 

4-A good example is the standard model Langrangian which is a little over a page Long. Your far better off using the portions applicable and reduce the equation to simply the relevant portions of the system being described.

Got it all this time. 

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- I disagree with your statement

Then what’s the point of bringing it up? “Science strives to be objective” isn’t exactly a controversial position. “Does true objectivity exist in science?” is a leading question that (along with your arguments) suggests that any lack of objectivity is a flaw in science. i.e. that it’s not truly objective, and that you’re free to dismiss it unless it is.

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Have you ever heard that science is based on objectivity?.....that the pure sciences are "objective" while applied ones, much less "objective"?.

Yes, as science aims to be objective. But you extended that when you speak of 

Where did you hear that falling short of being objective is a flaw of science, as opposed to the people practicing science?

 

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Precision -  "If the world was a purely objective object, then there would be nothing else left to explore beyond the objective realm. So, cro-magnon person would not have understood quantum mechanics and would have to find that out.

Perhaps you should consider if, it’s beyond the objective realm, maybe it’s not science.

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- As stated in a previous post on this thread - "To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it."

Also not influenced by feelings or opinions.

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

5- I present evidence and you say it is not! 

Do you understand what constitutes scientific evidence? (opinion is not evidence)

 

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

6- My vague dissatisfaction is based on evidence and my dissatisfaction is shared by many that I have referenced, have looked at the same evidence and concluded as I did, that maybe something unconventionnal is going on.

How is this not the ad populum fallacy? (that if several people believe something, it must be true, aka the bandwagon fallacy)

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

7- What is your definition of evidence and what disqualifies my "evidence" as not being evidence?

Scientific evidence is empirical rather than anecdotal. Details depend on branch of science, but it’s usually something that can be quantified and subject to statistical analysis, from experiment or controlled observation.

I’d have to know what you thought was evidence before I could say what disqualifies it.

[studiot]

On 9/9/2024 at 8:01 PM, Luc Turpin said:

To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it.

Well I can't agree with this.

What you are claiming is that I can't have objective thoughts by definition.

Since my thoughts can't exist without me, they can't be objective.

But also aren't you contradicting yourself ?

7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

As for my own definition, I believe that it goes in the same direction as it stipulates that there is no independence between object and subject.

 

7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Not only does perfect objectivity not exist,

I can't agree with this either.

As far as i can tell a measurement on the Mohs scale is totally objective.

 

 

It has been suggested that there is some scale of objectivity.

 

But I am suggesting that it is not as simple as that and this is the reason everyone is getting tangled up.

My boiling point example suggests that subjective and objective classifications are not mutually exclusive as required by the ancient greeks( remember them?)

Some situations have characteristics of one or the other, some situations have characteristics of both and some situations have characteristics of neither.

 

Edited September 10 by studiot

[Luc Turpin]

20 hours ago, Mordred said:

 

Thank you for being patient with me!

17 hours ago, swansont said:

1- Then what’s the point of bringing it up? “Science strives to be objective” isn’t exactly a controversial position. “Does true objectivity exist in science?” is a leading question that (along with your arguments) suggests that any lack of objectivity is a flaw in science. i.e. that it’s not truly objective, and that you’re free to dismiss it unless it is.

2-Do you understand what constitutes scientific evidence? (opinion is not evidence)

3- How is this not the ad populum fallacy? (that if several people believe something, it must be true, aka the bandwagon fallacy)

4-Scientific evidence is empirical rather than anecdotal. Details depend on branch of science, but it’s usually something that can be quantified and subject to statistical analysis, from experiment or controlled observation.

5-I’d have to know what you thought was evidence before I could say what disqualifies it.

1-I disagree that something beyond physicalism is beyond science. Any lack of objectivity is not a "flaw", but a "factor" to contend with in science. Science is doing a good job at alleviating this "flaw". I am not dismissing science on the grounds that it cannot attain perfect objectivity.

2- Yes, I understand what constitutes scientific evidence and my "opinions" as you call them are what I consider interpretation of evidence.

3- Not several people, but several scientists looking at the same data as myself and seeing something else going on. And I reiterate a minority view, but nonetheless a view.

4- Agree

5- Evidence: information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis.

Like this one which appears to show that goldenrod plants demonstrate a form of intelligence by adapting their responses to herbivors based on the presence of neighboring plants and environmental cues, challenging traditional definitions of intelligence.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2024.2345985

There are many such studies that appear to "challenge" our current understanding of nature.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

1-Well I can't agree with this.

2- What you are claiming is that I can't have objective thoughts by definition.  Since my thoughts can't exist without me, they can't be objective.

3-But also aren't you contradicting yourself ?

4- I can't agree with this either.As far as i can tell a measurement on the Mohs scale is totally objective.

5-It has been suggested that there is some scale of objectivity.

6- But I am suggesting that it is not as simple as that and this is the reason everyone is getting tangled up.

My boiling point example suggests that subjective and objective classifications are not mutually exclusive as required by the ancient greeks( remember them?)

Some situations have characteristics of one or the other, some situations have characteristics of both and some situations have characteristics of neither.

 

1- The definition is not mine, but one often provided by those in the business of defining the term.

2- A lot of ourthoughts, specially those based on evidence, are very-very objective though; they are just not perfectly objective

3- In what sense am-I contradicting myself?

4- Out of all of the scientific philosophers that I consulted, none claimed that perfect objectivity existed. However, some scientists do believe in perfect objectivity.

5- I agree that there is possibly some kind of a scale of objectivity; and for scientists, mostly dependent upon evidence.

6- And I agree that it is not as simple as that; but perfect objectivity is challenged by philosophers, apparently objects cannot be detached from subjects, and as you state, subjective and objective experiences cannot be unentangled from one another.

 

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- Out of all of the scientific philosophers that I consulted, none claimed that perfect objectivity existed. However, some scientists do believe in perfect objectivity.

And some philosophers believe in a perfect world, but not everyone is correct; some think the bell tolls for them...

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

1-I disagree that something beyond physicalism is beyond science. Any lack of objectivity is not a "flaw", but a "factor" to contend with in science. Science is doing a good job at alleviating this "flaw". I am not dismissing science on the grounds that it cannot attain perfect objectivity.

I didn’t say anything about physicalism, but if you contend that something “beyond” it is not beyond science, how do you measure such things? If they can’t be measured, you are requiring a change to science, which means you are being dismissive of it. 

 

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Yes, I understand what constitutes scientific evidence and my "opinions" as you call them are what I consider interpretation of evidence.

What evidence? You still haven’t presented any.

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Not several people, but several scientists looking at the same data as myself and seeing something else going on. And I reiterate a minority view, but nonetheless a view.

Views are not evidence. They are conclusions or opinions. That doesn’t make them correct.

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- Agree

5- Evidence: information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis.

Like this one which appears to show that goldenrod plants demonstrate a form of intelligence by adapting their responses to herbivors based on the presence of neighboring plants and environmental cues, challenging traditional definitions of intelligence.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2024.2345985

There are many such studies that appear to "challenge" our current understanding of nature.

The evidence is e.g. that JA and ethylene signals respond to the attacks by pathogenic fungi. That’s something that is measured. It seems to me that this is an objective observation, and this discussion is supposed to be about objectivity.

Plants having intelligence is an hypothesis, is labeled as such in the paper, and you admit that an hypothesis is distinct from the evidence supporting it. That there are ~70 definitions of intelligence suggests that this is not an objective issue. It sounds more like equivocation - using a word with more than one definition and using it interchangeably in situations where different definitions would apply 

[Mordred]

One detail to consider it's physicality is oft considered as being measurable. Particularly under QFT treatments and serves as a distinction between operator action and propogator action in terms of Feymann integrals. Ie internal wavy lines represent what is commonly called virtual particles which individually are not measurable.

Might help with defining physicality.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I disagree that something beyond physicalism is beyond science.

The flaw with this statement is that anything that can interact with a physical system, i.e. be somehow observable/measurable, would have to itselft be physical.  That is pretty much the defining feature of physical entities. This is the core problem with dualism, that it seeks to make a false division between phenomena.