Science and Objectivity

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Very objective indeed! However, do diamonds differ in hardness? Yes! So, who determined the upper and lower limits of their hardness?

How is this subjective? One surface of a diamond being slightly harder than another is still an objective observation.

[Luc Turpin]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

How is this subjective? One surface of a diamond being slightly harder than another is still an objective observation.

Who made the determination that it was slightly harder and using what instrument or test or method? Why are there other tests (Rockwell, Brinel, Vickers) if Mohs has achieved perfect objectivity?

"The problem is that the Mohs hardness scale is purely comparative and not objectively set out. Steel pins also don’t take into account the huge variations in steel due to the grade and chemical composition, meaning that it’s of no use for objectively quantifying how hard any one particular steel is."

https://www.westyorkssteel.com/blog/testing-steel-how-hard-can-it-be/

The variability of hardness discussed in this quote on steel also applies to all of the minerals used in the Mohs scale

 

Maybe objectivity in scale, but subjectivity in application of scale to realities of the world. 

Edited September 13 by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Who made the determination that it was slightly harder and using what instrument or test or method

How is that subjective?

I mean, if I rub diamond and quartz together does the scratch appear on one if I look at it, but on the other if someone else does?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Who made the determination that it was slightly harder and using what instrument or test or method? Why are there other tests (Rockwell, Brinel, Vickers) if Mohs has achieved perfect objectivity?

"The problem is that the Mohs hardness scale is purely comparative and not objectively set out. Steel pins also don’t take into account the huge variations in steel due to the grade and chemical composition, meaning that it’s of no use for objectively quantifying how hard any one particular steel is."

https://www.westyorkssteel.com/blog/testing-steel-how-hard-can-it-be/

The variability of hardness discussed in this quote on steel also applies to all of the minerals used in the Mohs scale

 

Maybe objectivity in scale, but subjectivity in application of scale to realities of the world. 

This illustrates what I suspected: you are confusing lack of precision with lack of objectivity. The Mohs scale has limited precision, since all it can do is rank minerals relative to one another rather than provide a quantitative value. But that does not make it subjective. 2 independent testers will agree on the relative rankings to assign to a group of minerals. 

(In fact the writer of the blog you quote is rather mis-applying the Mohs scale, since it was never designed for alloys such as steel. It can only be expected to give reliable  results for pure substances.)   

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The variability of hardness discussed in this quote on steel also applies to all of the minerals used in the Mohs scale

Since you are the (self styled) technical expert around here,

pray tell me why this is important to the issue of whether Mohs scale is objective or not ?

 

I note that the other hardness tests you refer to are continuous, but the Mohs scale is not.

Therin lies the reason why it is absolutely objective, even when, as exchemist observed, it is applied to materials outside its original purpose.

 

Do you actually know how to conduct a Mohs test /
Have you ever performed one or seen one performed ?

 

For your information another geoscience test developed almost exactly a century later is truly subjective.

This one is called the Atterberg limit test.

Edited September 13 by studiot

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How is that subjective?

I mean, if I rub diamond and quartz together does the scratch appear on one if I look at it, but on the other if someone else does?

I admit that this is a very good case for perfect objectivity. Nonetheless, objectivity is still reliant upon subject perception to make the determination that it is objective, which is the main point of the definition. You need a subject to perceive the scratch on the quartz and subject perception is not 100% infallible, although very-very unlikely in your example.

11 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This illustrates what I suspected: you are confusing lack of precision with lack of objectivity. The Mohs scale has limited precision, since all it can do is rank minerals relative to one another rather than provide a quantitative value. But that does not make it subjective. 2 independent testers will agree on the relative rankings to assign to a group of minerals. 

(In fact the writer of the blog you quote is rather mis-applying the Mohs scale, since it was never designed for alloys such as steel. It can only be expected to give reliable  results for pure substances.)   

How can you lack precision and still be objective? I am not quite sure I understand how this could come about.

The mohs scale has quantative values and agree that my example does not make it subjective

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

1- Since you are the (self styled) technical expert around here,

2- pray tell me why this is important to the issue of whether Mohs scale is objective or not ?

 

3- I note that the other hardness tests you refer to are continuous, but the Mohs scale is not.

4- Therin lies the reason why it is absolutely objective, even when, as exchemist observed, it is applied to materials outside its original purpose.

 

5-Do you actually know how to conduct a Mohs test /Have you ever performed one or seen one performed ?

6- For your information another geoscience test developed almost exactly a century later is truly subjective. This one is called the Atterberg limit test.

1- I am just trying to discuss here, not pass for a genius, which I am not. I have shown that I am not on numerous occasions in my posts.

2- Just saying that imperfections abound also in the minerals stated in the mohs scale

3- I am so smart that I don't even understand your point of continuous rather than not in the mohs scale.

4- Read my Swansont reply above; if you can seperate the object from the subject, then you can claim absolute objectivity. But, the example given by Swansont, which is very-very close to absolute objectivity, does not remove the object from the subject. "Someone" has to make the determination about the "something", and this "someone" is not 100% infallible.

5- Quite frankly, no, but does that make a difference.

6- Here to learn!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I admit that this is a very good case for perfect objectivity. Nonetheless, objectivity is still reliant upon subject perception to make the determination that it is objective, which is the main point of the definition. You need a subject to perceive the scratch on the quartz and subject perception is not 100% infallible, although very-very unlikely in your example.

How can you lack precision and still be objective? I am not quite sure I understand how this could come about.

The mohs scale has quantative values and agree that my example does not make it subjective

1- I am just trying to discuss here, not pass for a genius, which I am not. I have shown that I am not on numerous occasions in my posts.

2- Just saying that imperfections abound also in the minerals stated in the mohs scale

3- I am so smart that I don't even understand your point of continuous rather than not in the mohs scale.

4- Read my Swansont reply above; if you can seperate the object from the subject, then you can claim absolute objectivity. But, the example given by Swansont, which is very-very close to absolute objectivity, does not remove the object from the subject. "Someone" has to make the determination about the "something", and this "someone" is not 100% infallible.

5- Quite frankly, no, but does that make a difference.

6- Here to learn!

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're stuttering...

[Luc Turpin]

54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're stuttering...

Yep!

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Yep!

And missing the point...

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

And missing the point...

Told you I aint that smart!

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Told you I aint that smart!

Nor me, but there's a lot you can learn here, if you're smart enough to listen...

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Just saying that imperfections abound also in the minerals stated in the mohs scale

No you were doing more than 'just saying'.

You were stating as a fact that this disbars Mohs from objectivity.

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- I am so smart that I don't even understand your point of continuous rather than not in the mohs scale.

 

So I will offer a simpler example that has similar characteristics and then return to Mohs.

 

Both examples demonstrate the difference between a scientist or engineer and a philosopher quite nicely.

 

Consider measuring the length of something with a ruler.

 

The major markings on my ruler are 1 inch, 2 inches , 3 inches and so on.

So by placing the ruler alongside the object I can see that is is greater than 2 inches long but less than 3 inches long.

So it is between 2 and 3 inches in length.

So far this is objective.

I can estimate the length as one quarter of the way along, but this is obviously now subjective so the finer measurement 2 and a quarter inches is subjective though the coarser measurement is objective.

I could also dispense with the ruler and employ a box of lathe operator's block gauges of length 1 inch 2 inches, 3 inches to achieve the same objective measurement.

 

Mohs scale is like using the lathe operator's blocks.

Brinell, Vickers, Rockwell and other more modern scales are continuous like the ruler, which is why I said they are subjective.

 

The point of the blocks is that it doesn't matter if the actual length is 2 and 3/8 " or 2 and 2/8 inches or other figure, the block method is still consistent within itself.

In the same way small compositional variations in mineral can be accomodated without invalidating the steps between which the measured specimen lies.

 

Of course I could blunder and mistakenly use the 4" block or the flourite block instead of the calcite one in Mohs.
In Science and engineering has developed a whole theory of errors which we could be discussing as examples of the difference between science and philosophy.

 

But that would entail you asking questions as opposed to making statements in contradiction to what people put to you.

[Luc Turpin]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

1-No you were doing more than 'just saying'.You were stating as a fact that this disbars Mohs from objectivity.

2-So I will offer a simpler example that has similar characteristics and then return to Mohs.Both examples demonstrate the difference between a scientist or engineer and a philosopher quite nicely. Consider measuring the length of something with a ruler. The major markings on my ruler are 1 inch, 2 inches , 3 inches and so on. So by placing the ruler alongside the object I can see that is is greater than 2 inches long but less than 3 inches long.So it is between 2 and 3 inches in length.So far this is objective. I can estimate the length as one quarter of the way along, but this is obviously now subjective so the finer measurement 2 and a quarter inches is subjective though the coarser measurement is objective. I could also dispense with the ruler and employ a box of lathe operator's block gauges of length 1 inch 2 inches, 3 inches to achieve the same objective measurement.

3- Mohs scale is like using the lathe operator's blocks. Brinell, Vickers, Rockwell and other more modern scales are continuous like the ruler, which is why I said they are subjective.The point of the blocks is that it doesn't matter if the actual length is 2 and 3/8 " or 2 and 2/8 inches or other figure, the block method is still consistent within itself. In the same way small compositional variations in mineral can be accomodated without invalidating the steps between which the measured specimen lies. Of course I could blunder and mistakenly use the 4" block or the flourite block instead of the calcite one in Mohs. In Science and engineering has developed a whole theory of errors which we could be discussing as examples of the difference between science and philosophy.

4- But that would entail you asking questions as opposed to making statements in contradiction to what people put to you.

1- I was trying to demonstrate imperfect objectivity through imperfect sampling, but, admittedly, not going very far with the argumentation. Never was my intention to disbar Mohs from objectivity; but disbar it from perfect objectivity, maybe.

2 - Because of 4- below, I hesitate to say that the subject is still in the picture, even for the greater than two and less than three argumentation. But, if you ask me if a measurement between two and three inches is objective enough to make science work, then my response is a resounding yes. Also, does your two examples demonstrate some sort of a link between more objectivity with less precision and less objectivity with more precision? This seem to be contra-indicative.

3- I understand better you position.

4- I would appreciate knowing more about the theory of errors as a way of differentiating between science and philosophy. I admit that may very well be missing many parts of the puzzle in my comprehension of objectivity is science.

 

Note: I will not be very available on the weekend for responses to posts. Thanks.

 

 

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Also, does your two examples demonstrate some sort of a link between more objectivity with less precision and less objectivity with more precision? This seem to be contra-indicative.

It’s only subjective for precision beyond what the method/instrument can provide, and personal interpretation is used.

[Luc Turpin]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s only subjective for precision beyond what the method/instrument can provide, and personal interpretation is used.

Understrood

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Note: I will not be very available on the weekend for responses to posts. Thanks.

Have a refreshing break and come back renewed next week.

[cladking]

On 9/9/2024 at 7:22 AM, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Yes, I agree that the principle problem with objectivity is in paradigms but there is also some problem with experiment itself because we still see what we expect and experiment is only relevant within the definitions and axioms underlying it and proper interpretation in light of its parameters.  

There is incidentally some bias introduced by the formation of testable hypotheses.  We can't test what we don't first hypothesize.  

On 9/10/2024 at 8:32 AM, dimreepr said:

Why do you care?

Science, reality, is sought to be understood to better control our lives and make better predictions. If science is lacking in any way whatsoever it behooves us all to identify and correct it.  Anything else is anti-science and anti-life. 

If science can be improved in any way it must be improved.  

 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yes, I agree that the principle problem with objectivity is in paradigms but there is also some problem with experiment itself because we still see what we expect and experiment is only relevant within the definitions and axioms underlying it and proper interpretation in light of its parameters.  

Science is rife with experiments that saw unexpected things. Alpha particles bouncing back off of atoms. Quantized deflection of atoms in a magnetic field. Even seeing different masses fall at the same rate was unexpected.

And this doesn’t include just observations that had no explanation at the time.

24 minutes ago, cladking said:

There is incidentally some bias introduced by the formation of testable hypotheses.  We can't test what we don't first hypothesize.  

How is that bias?

[Luc Turpin]

11 hours ago, cladking said:

Yes, I agree that the principle problem with objectivity is in paradigms but there is also some problem with experiment itself because we still see what we expect and experiment is only relevant within the definitions and axioms underlying it and proper interpretation in light of its parameters.  

There is incidentally some bias introduced by the formation of testable hypotheses.  We can't test what we don't first hypothesize.  

 

 I need to correct and even contradict my statement; as there is not perfect objectivity, all steps in the process of doing science are vulnerable, to a certain degree, to subjectivity seeping into the process, including individual experiments. 

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, cladking said:

Yes, I agree that the principle problem with objectivity is in paradigms but there is also some problem with experiment itself because we still see what we expect and experiment is only relevant within the definitions and axioms underlying it and proper interpretation in light of its parameters.  

You can only be objective with an object that exists in time and space, everything else is a matter of interpretation, for instance, what am I thinking about now? You can put me in an MRI, however sophisticated, and all you can ever say is, you're probably enjoying that thought, or not...

12 hours ago, cladking said:

Science, reality, is sought to be understood to better control our lives and make better predictions. If science is lacking in any way whatsoever it behooves us all to identify and correct it.  Anything else is anti-science and anti-life. 

If science can be improved in any way it must be improved.  

That reads as the latest version of the bible, which, I think was designed to help control our emotions; the difference is the lack of a political understanding, science can't fix that...

[cladking]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Science is rife with experiments that saw unexpected things. Alpha particles bouncing back off of atoms. Quantized deflection of atoms in a magnetic field. Even seeing different masses fall at the same rate was unexpected.

Yes.  It is for this reason that experiment is critical in establishing theory.  I believe humans by nature reason in circles and always come back to our assumptions unless experiment intercedes.  

Bias introduced through hypothesis formation is not direct but most people most of the time will come up with hypotheses that support prevailing paradigms. 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You can only be objective with an object that exists in time and space, everything else is a matter of interpretation, for instance, what am I thinking about now?

I don't think it is possible for our species to be objective because we preferentially see our models and beliefs to reality.  We don't see a "basketball" we see Michael Jordan.  Objects we see often turn out to be something else entirely either on further inspection or a simple change of models or beliefs.  

It's possible thoughts can be discerned some day with sufficiently sensitive instruments.  A more interesting question might be what leads us on some specific train of thought.  

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That reads as the latest version of the bible, which, I think was designed to help control our emotions; the difference is the lack of a political understanding, science can't fix that...

In the human thirst for knowledge, understanding, and creation nothing will get in our way whether it's the status quo, beliefs, or existing methodology.  Everything in the way will eventually be bulldozed aside so long as one of us survives.  Yes, I believe there will be limitations on science and I further believe we've been at a major obstacle for a century now.  But we shall overcome.  

[Mordred]

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yes.  It is for this reason that experiment is critical in establishing theory.  I believe humans by nature reason in circles and always come back to our assumptions unless experiment intercedes.  

Bias introduced through hypothesis formation is not direct but most people most of the time will come up with hypotheses that support prevailing paradigms. 

Yes experiment will always supersede any theory. If an experiment doesn't conform to a theory its an automatic indication something is missing or incorrect in that theory.

Good examples can readily be found studying how the SM particles were discovered. 

Example

A scattering experiment is performed the examiner sees scattering events that show CPT violations/conservation law violations. So conducts further research to account for those violations. This has  often led to new particle interactions or new particles discovered.

A vast majority of our theories today resulted by unexpected experimental findings that upon further research leads to new theories and understood processes.

Contrary to popular belief there isn't really any "Eureka " moments of someone randomly guessing at a new theory through sheer insight.

The majority of our theories today arise from trying to fathom and explain experimental evidence and not force the experiment to conform to theory.

Edited September 15 by Mordred

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I need to correct and even contradict my statement; as there is not perfect objectivity

You've entirely missed @studiot point, it depends on your definition of perfect, philosophically "this fit's me perfectly" is both correct and incorrect; scientifically, perfect doesn't exist bc we can only just see an atom and things get much smaller than that and perfect would demand that we can observe all the way down; all of which is irrelevant, in the question of the supernateral v superscience... 

Edited September 15 by dimreepr

[cladking]

27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I need to correct and even contradict my statement; as there is not perfect objectivity, all steps in the process of doing science are vulnerable, to a certain degree, to subjectivity seeping into the process, including individual experiments. 

I agree, except it is apparent that the primary problem is in the extrapolation of experimental results that Kuhn called a "paradigm".  We reduce reality to experiment using definitions and axioms in the context of existing understanding and then tend to forget that ultimately experimental results are defined by these and the specific design.  

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes experiment will always supersede any theory. If an experiment doesn't conform to a theory its an automatic indication something is missing or incorrect in that theory.

Good examples can readily be found studying how the SM particles were discovered. 

Example

A scattering experiment is performed the examiner sees scattering events that show CPT violations/conservation law violations. So conducts further research to account for those violations. This has  often led to new particle interactions or new particles discovered.

A vast majority of our theories today resulted by unexpected experimental findings that upon further research leads to new theories and understood processes.

Obviously I agree except that I believe that in the long run most of our current understandings will fall by the wayside.  

Edited September 15 by cladking

[Night FM]

I think the short version is that science provides systems for acquiring information, however, of course, the actual acquisition of the information and the interpretations of it are going to rely on subjective judgment.

For example, we may theorize that gravity objectively exists based on the pre-existing information about the theory of gravity, however the actual process of acquiring information and formulating it into a theory of gravity is based on subjective judgments, such as judgments made about what is presented to the senses.