Science and Objectivity

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Night FM said:

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.

Science doesn't really care about subjectivity, it seeks only to understand the aquired knowledge; it's people that think that's a smart thing to do, and display as a means to judge...

[Mordred]

12 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

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

Well that is where I will disagree. The reason being is a good robust theory is adaptive by nature. Good easy example being LCDM.. 

Most ppl believe the LCDM model is simply GR and the FLRW metric however that is false. It actually involves a very large collection of other physics theories such as those of thermodynamics, particles physics, QFT, QM etc.

The LCDM model is constantly changing as new research presented it will continue to change as it has inherent flexibility to do so.

For the past 35 years I lost count of the number of times I heard the LCDM model will die to to some new finding. Simply to see the LCDM model incorporate those findings.

Edited September 15 by Mordred

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, cladking said:

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

An hypothesis you’ve made but not supported with evidence. But why shouldn’t the default be that prevailing paradigms are sufficient, since it’s actually quite rare that a new paradigm is needed? Paradigms are paradigms because of the massive amount of evidence that supports them. When your neutrino signal seems to exceed the speed of light, why wouldn’t you hypothesize an error with the signal in favor of immediately dumping a hugely successful theory?

[cladking]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

An hypothesis you’ve made but not supported with evidence. But why shouldn’t the default be that prevailing paradigms are sufficient, since it’s actually quite rare that a new paradigm is needed? Paradigms are paradigms because of the massive amount of evidence that supports them. When your neutrino signal seems to exceed the speed of light, why wouldn’t you hypothesize an error with the signal in favor of immediately dumping a hugely successful theory?

I'm certainly not suggesting any theory be tossed out or tweaked because of one anomalous result that isn't or might not be understood.  

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

I'm certainly not suggesting any theory be tossed out or tweaked because of one anomalous result that isn't or might not be understood.  

That's good to hear. Though there are occasions. Lol a personal example was my Masters dissertation which used quintessence inflation. The number of E-folds my equations of state produced was in the acceptable bounds for COBE dataset but the WMAP dataset (along with other later data) proved it didn't have sufficient e-folds. 

The other  research being the constancy of the cosmological constant. Quintessence requires a varying Lambda term. This is one case where a paradigm (Quintessence) can be completely overturned by findings.

The requirement of varying Lambda term does not conform to the quintessence paradigm. However these cases are rather rare. However it always requires a large body of evidence.

 

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, cladking said:

I'm certainly not suggesting any theory be tossed out or tweaked because of one anomalous result that isn't or might not be understood.  

Then what are you suggesting? And what evidence supports it?

[cladking]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Then what are you suggesting? And what evidence supports it?

...As Kuhn said;  "paradigms change".  

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

...As Kuhn said;  "paradigms change".  

How often do they change?

 

[studiot]

10 hours 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. 

It's a good job you called this thread Science and Objectivity because:

 

Perhaps some consideration of history will help.

The notion of subjectivity is rooted long ago in very primitive times.

For instance in some primitive tribe the headman said to Joe, "go and evaluate the threat by the enemy tribe or perhaps the benefit we could get from the nearby herd of boar."
Someone else said, "no, send JIM - his evaluation will be more reliable"
This could have been the beginnings of recognition of subjectivity.

After that we entered the 'golden age of reason' (ancient Greece) and the opposite of subjectivity  was identified ie objectivity.

As we moved towards modern times thinking changed and developed.

Science adopted many words with more general meanings and gave them special more tightly defined meanings to use them for its own purposes.

Earlier civilisations were a bit fuzzy about parts of speech, but today we recognise nouns and adjectives; note that objective is an adjective, meaningless without a noun.

English further recognises concrete and abstract nouns nad that adjectives may be modified by qualifiers, unless they are special in nature.

Scientific English recognises that nouns may refer to objects with properties (which are also nouns).

 

It is also worth noting that Science also uses the word 'objective' as a noun as another (but related) sense in scientific optics.

As far as Science is concerned we do not evaluate objects, we evaluate some selected property or properties of objects.

(Note I say evaluate not measure).

It is inappropriate to refer to an noun (other than an evaluation or similar process) as objective or subjective.

So we cannot objectively or otherwise directly evaluate Jacob's coat, but we can evaluate its properties say its colour.

 

I mentioned qualifiers for adjectives

A good way to regard perfect in perfect objectivity is to follow the ancient greeks (at last I am praising them) and their concept of the infinite.

The greeks were great geometers and to them a (straight) line was infinite which meant that you could never reach either end, no matter how far you went along the line.

It was there, but unattainable.

 

 

 

 

It is also worth noting that Science uses the word objective as a noun in another (but related) sense in scientific optics.

Edited September 15 by studiot

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

it's a good job you called this thread Science and Objectivity because:

The notion of subjectivity is rooted long ago in very primitive times.

For instance in some primitive tribe the headman said to Joe, "go and evaluate the threat by the enemy tribe or perhaps the benefit we could get from the nearby herd of boar."
Someone else said, "no, send JIM - his evaluation will be more reliable"
This could have been the beginnings of recognition of subjectivity.

After that we entered the 'golden age of reason' (ancient Greece) and the opposite of subjectivity  was identified ie objectivity.

As we moved towards modern times thinking changed and developed.

Science adopted many words with more general meanings and gave them special more tightly defined meanings to use them for its own purposes.

Earlier civilisations were a bit fuzzy about parts of speech, but today we recognise nouns and adjectives; note that objective is an adjective, meaningless without a noun.

English further recognises concrete and abstract nouns nad that adjectives may be modified by qualifiers, unless they are special in nature.

Scientific English recognises that nouns may refer to objects with properties (which are also nouns).

It is also worth noting that Science also uses the word 'objective' as a noun as another (but related) sense in scientific optics.

As far as Science is concerned we do not evaluate objects, we evaluate some selected property or properties of objects.

(Note I say evaluate not measure).

It is inappropriate to refer to an noun (other than an evaluation or similar process) as objective or subjective.

So we cannot objectively or otherwise directly evaluate Jacob's coat, but we can evaluate its properties say its colour.

I mentioned qualifiers for adjectives

A good way to regard perfect in perfect objectivity is to follow the ancient greeks (at last I am praising them) and their concept of the infinite.

The greeks were great geometers and to them a (straight) line was infinite which meant that you could never reach either end, no matter how far you went along the line.

It was there, but unattainable.

It is also worth noting that Science uses the word objective as a noun in another (but related) sense in scientific optics.

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity? I sensed while reading this, maybe wrongfully, that science wanted to "rinse away" subjectivity from the process. However, some believe that subjectivity has a key role to play in science

In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. 

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/552

Another thing that caught my attention was that science does not evaluate objects, but evaluates properties of objects. This will become vital in furthering my understanding of science.

 

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity? I sensed while reading this, maybe wrongfully, that science wanted to "rinse away" subjectivity from the process. However, some believe that subjectivity has a key role to play in science

In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. 

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/552

Another thing that caught my attention was that science does not evaluate objects, but evaluates properties of objects. This will become vital in furthering my understanding of science.

 

You're clutching at straw's, to what end? 

 

38 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity?

No, the arrow of time can end in one of two way's and it didn't happen yesterday... 😉

[Luc Turpin]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

1-You're clutching at straw's, to what end? 

 

2-No, the arrow of time can end in one of two way's and it didn't happen yesterday... 😉

1- to feel that I have some sense of purpose
 

2-din’t get that one 😊

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- to feel that I have some sense of purpose

Good luck to you...

[Luc Turpin]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Good luck to you...

Will need it as so far I feel nothing

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity? I sensed while reading this, maybe wrongfully, that science wanted to "rinse away" subjectivity from the process. However, some believe that subjectivity has a key role to play in science

In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. 

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/552

Another thing that caught my attention was that science does not evaluate objects, but evaluates properties of objects. This will become vital in furthering my understanding of science.

 

The extract you quote seems to be pretty badly written and to be rather a muddle. They criticise science for not accounting for "the subjective experience of life", without clarifying who or what is doing the "experiencing". One might assume they are talking about human experience, but in the next sentence they speak of failing to understand "the various aspects associated with the [sic] biological entities". So actually, they seem to have in mind all organisms, not just human beings. So what, in that case, can they mean by the "subjective experience" in the preceding sentence? Are they suggesting all life, including, say, that of a wasp or a plant, involves some subjective experience that it ought to be the job of science to explain?

It seems to me they need to start by justifying the assumption they seem to be making that there has to be some special "subjective experience" that is a universal special feature of living organisms. 

So that is the first point. The second is that you now seem to be confusing the study of subjective experience, e.g. as recommended by these authors, with a supposed need for science itself to become subjective in its methodology. That would be the kiss of death for science, obviously.  

 

  

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity? I sensed while reading this, maybe wrongfully, that science wanted to "rinse away" subjectivity from the process. However, some believe that subjectivity has a key role to play in science

In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. 

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/552

Another thing that caught my attention was that science does not evaluate objects, but evaluates properties of objects. This will become vital in furthering my understanding of science.

 

+1 for correctly picking up on both my important points.

However I must agree with exchemist about the article you refer to.

If the authors know anything about Science at all they have chosed to exclude it from their article which is filled with waffly generalities and other piffle.

They seem to have an anti Science agenda.

 

I would also like to pick you up on one point, you like to use the word precise.

Do you know what science means by precision and accuracy and their difference.

Here is a good article to demonstrate this

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/dating-glacial-sediments-2/precision-and-accuracy-glacial-geology/

 

 

Science is active, not passive.

It doesn't just wring its collective hands about subjectivity, nor does it try to eliminate it.

It accepts subjectivity as part of the facts of life and looks for ways to control and contain the effects to an acceptable level.

Some subjects are best approached by way of many examples and I think this is one of them.

 

So going back to our ruler, it is an observed fact of sunbjectivity that different observers will consider the rule marks line up with the measureand at slightly different places.

So each measurer will obtain slightly different evaluations.

One further feature of this is that any given observer will  probably consistently estimate tha match position slightly to the left or right.

This introduces 'bias' into the subjectivity.

Along come Science, galloping to the rescue.

This is no godd I want everyone to read 4 when the marks are aligned with 4.

So Science says this phenomenon is called 'parallax'. Parallax occurs because everyone tips their head slightly to one side or the other slightly differently.

But I can cure this by s sneaky introduction of a mirror, where it is a problem.

It is not a problem with a ruler because ruler measurements are made 'by difference'.
That means that the observer lines up not one, but two marks to make a measurement. One at the beginning and one at the end.

However when it comes to old fashioned meters with needle pointers the observer only makes one reading so we will place a mirror behind the pointer and instruct the observer to line up the needle with its image in the mirror so counteracting the parallax.

 

 

 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

The extract you quote seems to be pretty badly written and to be rather a muddle. They criticise science for not accounting for "the subjective experience of life", without clarifying who or what is doing the "experiencing". One might assume they are talking about human experience, but in the next sentence they speak of failing to understand "the various aspects associated with the [sic] biological entities". So actually, they seem to have in mind all organisms, not just human beings. So what, in that case, can they mean by the "subjective experience" in the preceding sentence? Are they suggesting all life, including, say, that of a wasp or a plant, involves some subjective experience that it ought to be the job of science to explain?

It seems to me they need to start by justifying the assumption they seem to be making that there has to be some special "subjective experience" that is a universal special feature of living organisms. 

So that is the first point. The second is that you now seem to be confusing the study of subjective experience, e.g. as recommended by these authors, with a supposed need for science itself to become subjective in its methodology. That would be the kiss of death for science, obviously.  

 

  

I think that I chose poorly with the posted reference as I just wanted to pursue the line that subjectivity is already in the science process and/or a requirement for good science.

The article that I posted made the debate diverge towards consciousness and its interplay with living organisms. In fact, the authors do promote that not only humans are conscious, but all biological entities, which is an idea that I have been pursuing, quite unssucessfully in a few threads,

Not sure though that it would be the kiss of death for science if a certain amout of subjectivy was in the scientific process..

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

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/40/1/95/130748/The-science-of-subjectivity

or this one:

"Subjective choice and objective knowledge are no opposites in science: rather, subjective elements are inevitable in scientific inference and need to be explicitly addressed to improve transparency and achieve more reliable outcomes, says a team of EU-funded researchers."

"Explanatory inference is the process of choosing the hypothesis that best explains the data at hand. This concept has been notoriously vague, notes Sprenger: “What is a ‘good’ explanation? The gut feeling of a scientist? In our work, we have provided a rigorous foundation of this mode of inference via the construction and comparison of various measures of explanatory power.” The team identified a close relationship between prior beliefs and explanatory power. The quality of an explanation, and the inference of the ‘best explanation’, is hence not a purely objective matter, but entangled with subjective beliefs."

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430474-reconciling-subjectivity-and-objectivity-in-science

 

59 minutes ago, studiot said:

1-If the authors know anything about Science at all they have chosed to exclude it from their article which is filled with waffly generalities and other piffle. They seem to have an anti Science agenda.

2- I would also like to pick you up on one point, you like to use the word precise.Do you know what science means by precision and accuracy and their difference.Here is a good article to demonstrate this

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/dating-glacial-sediments-2/precision-and-accuracy-glacial-geology/

3-Science is active, not passive. It doesn't just wring its collective hands about subjectivity, nor does it try to eliminate it.It accepts subjectivity as part of the facts of life and looks for ways to control and contain the effects to an acceptable level.

4- Some subjects are best approached by way of many examples and I think this is one of them. So going back to our ruler, it is an observed fact of sunbjectivity that different observers will consider the rule marks line up with the measureand at slightly different places.So each measurer will obtain slightly different evaluations.One further feature of this is that any given observer will  probably consistently estimate tha match position slightly to the left or right. This introduces 'bias' into the subjectivity. Along come Science, galloping to the rescue.This is no godd I want everyone to read 4 when the marks are aligned with 4. So Science says this phenomenon is called 'parallax'. Parallax occurs because everyone tips their head slightly to one side or the other slightly differently.But I can cure this by s sneaky introduction of a mirror, where it is a problem.It is not a problem with a ruler because ruler measurements are made 'by difference'.
That means that the observer lines up not one, but two marks to make a measurement. One at the beginning and one at the end.However when it comes to old fashioned meters with needle pointers the observer only makes one reading so we will place a mirror behind the pointer and instruct the observer to line up the needle with its image in the mirror so counteracting the parallax.

 

 

1- Is the article that bad or just presenting another perspective of things that runs counter to one's worldview? They criticise, but do not abandon science.

 

2- Assimilated the difference between accuracy and precision; thanks!

 

3- My contention as those from referenced authors is that subjectivity has a constructive role to play in the scientific process and should not always be frowned upon. 

 

4- There are ways of correcting tilting heads, but what about when the difference in lecture comes from the inside of the head; "Subconsciously saying that I want it slightly less than "4" as this will go towards bolstering my hypothesis"

 

 

 

 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

The extract you quote seems to be pretty badly written and to be rather a muddle. They criticise science for not accounting for "the subjective experience of life", without clarifying who or what is doing the "experiencing". One might assume they are talking about human experience, but in the next sentence they speak of failing to understand "the various aspects associated with the [sic] biological entities". So actually, they seem to have in mind all organisms, not just human beings. So what, in that case, can they mean by the "subjective experience" in the preceding sentence? Are they suggesting all life, including, say, that of a wasp or a plant, involves some subjective experience that it ought to be the job of science to explain?

It seems to me they need to start by justifying the assumption they seem to be making that there has to be some special "subjective experience" that is a universal special feature of living organisms. 

So that is the first point. The second is that you now seem to be confusing the study of subjective experience, e.g. as recommended by these authors, with a supposed need for science itself to become subjective in its methodology. That would be the kiss of death for science, obviously.  

 

  

The paper is poorly written and it seems that the journal is one of the weird predatory ones. Even accounting for a certain jargon in social sciences, this article has been especially unclear in its core concepts.

 

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

"Explanatory inference is the process of choosing the hypothesis that best explains the data at hand. This concept has been notoriously vague, notes Sprenger: “What is a ‘good’ explanation? The gut feeling of a scientist? In our work, we have provided a rigorous foundation of this mode of inference via the construction and comparison of various measures of explanatory power.” The team identified a close relationship between prior beliefs and explanatory power. The quality of an explanation, and the inference of the ‘best explanation’, is hence not a purely objective matter, but entangled with subjective beliefs."

Kindly add the last paragraph:

Quote

“Procedures for evaluating experiments and their statistical analysis should be adapted: we need to lose our fear of subjective elements in inference,” Sprenger concludes. “Science is superior to superstition not because it does not allow for subjective elements, but because its conclusions are rather resistant to variation in subjective input, and because it allows for rational criticism of the assumptions it makes.”

 

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Hypotheses are always made by one individual or by a limited group of scientists, and are therefore subjective—based on the prior experience and processes of reason employed by those individuals, rather than solely on objective external process. Such subjectivity and concomitant uncertainty lead to competing theories that are subsequently pared down as some are proved to be incompatible with new observations."

This smacks of equivocation. The problem of subjectivity is in meaning different things to different people. The fact that individuals formulate hypotheses does not make them subjective.

It’s a manufactured objection, based on a tortured use of the definition.

The fact that different individuals might come up with different hypotheses is a strength of science, not a weakness. It means more possibilities are tested. If the hypothesis is subjective - it has a different meaning that depends on the individual, that makes it a bad hypothesis.

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

"Explanatory inference is the process of choosing the hypothesis that best explains the data at hand. This concept has been notoriously vague, notes Sprenger: “What is a ‘good’ explanation? The gut feeling of a scientist? In our work, we have provided a rigorous foundation of this mode of inference via the construction and comparison of various measures of explanatory power.” The team identified a close relationship between prior beliefs and explanatory power. The quality of an explanation, and the inference of the ‘best explanation’, is hence not a purely objective matter, but entangled with subjective beliefs."

It would be better to not rely on people who have apparently never become acquainted with science. We tend to quantify things. A good match with data is what makes a good explanation. If you have these vague, subjective issues, it suggests the problem is with having a poor model, rather than a problem with the process of science

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- Is the article that bad or just presenting another perspective of things that runs counter to one's worldview? They criticise, but do not abandon science.

Why have you revferted to ignoring my important points ?

Do you prefer following to a bunch on non scientific ninnies ?

I was trying to show you how to think for yourself.

[Luc Turpin]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

1-The paper is poorly written and it seems that the journal is one of the weird predatory ones. Even accounting for a certain jargon in social sciences, this article has been especially unclear in its core concepts.

 

2-Kindly add the last paragraph:

 

 1- I guess that we have unanimity that the paper is of poor quality. It was not for the content though that I posted it, but because it was expressing a view of including subjectivity in the scientific process.

2- It says that science 'needs to lose its fear of subjectivity in efference" and says that “Science is superior to superstition not because it does not allow for subjective elements, but because its conclusions are rather resistant to variation in subjective input, and because it allows for rational criticism of the assumptions it makes.” I am all for this

14 hours ago, swansont said:

1-This smacks of equivocation. The problem of subjectivity is in meaning different things to different people. The fact that individuals formulate hypotheses does not make them subjective.

2- A good match with data is what makes a good explanation.

3-If you have these vague, subjective issues, it suggests the problem is with having a poor model, rather than a problem with the process of science

1- The fact that individuals formulate hypotheses does make it subjective. Definition: a- Subjectity which is the claim that perception emerges form the subject's point of view. b- Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind 

2- Subjectivity in the scientific process does not exclude "a good match with data is what makes a good explanation.

3- There is a good side to subjectivity in science; it allows for different ideas to come into play.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Why have you revferted to ignoring my important points ?

Do you prefer following to a bunch on non scientific ninnies ?

I was trying to show you how to think for yourself.

 

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Why have you revferted to ignoring my important points ?

Do you prefer following to a bunch on non scientific ninnies ?

I was trying to show you how to think for yourself.

For an unknown reason, most of my response was not posted. I will try and recover it.

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Subjectivity in the scientific process does not exclude "a good match with data is what makes a good explanation.

Of course it doesn't, who said it did ?

 

However, maximum caution, beware Will Robinson.

We often warn with two very deep and very perceptive cautionary phrases.

"The map is not the territory"    Alfred Korzybski

" Correlation does not imply causation"  Karl Pearson

 

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

For an unknown reason, most of my response was not posted. I will try and recover it.

 

In which case, my apologies. I await the complete version.

Perhaps it was lost because you seem to have stuck your reply inside the quote from me.

 

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- There is a good side to subjectivity in science; it allows for different ideas to come into play.

But it also has led to some enormous blunders for instance when kelvin miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of a hundred million in the arrogance of thinking that Physicists of the time knew everything.

[Luc Turpin]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

1-If the authors know anything about Science at all they have chosed to exclude it from their article which is filled with waffly generalities and other piffle. They seem to have an anti Science agenda.

2- I would also like to pick you up on one point, you like to use the word precise.Do you know what science means by precision and accuracy and their difference.Here is a good article to demonstrate this

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/dating-glacial-sediments-2/precision-and-accuracy-glacial-geology/

3-Science is active, not passive. It doesn't just wring its collective hands about subjectivity, nor does it try to eliminate it.It accepts subjectivity as part of the facts of life and looks for ways to control and contain the effects to an acceptable level.

4- Some subjects are best approached by way of many examples and I think this is one of them. So going back to our ruler, it is an observed fact of sunbjectivity that different observers will consider the rule marks line up with the measureand at slightly different places.So each measurer will obtain slightly different evaluations.One further feature of this is that any given observer will  probably consistently estimate tha match position slightly to the left or right. This introduces 'bias' into the subjectivity. Along come Science, galloping to the rescue.This is no godd I want everyone to read 4 when the marks are aligned with 4. So Science says this phenomenon is called 'parallax'. Parallax occurs because everyone tips their head slightly to one side or the other slightly differently.But I can cure this by s sneaky introduction of a mirror, where it is a problem.It is not a problem with a ruler because ruler measurements are made 'by difference'.
That means that the observer lines up not one, but two marks to make a measurement. One at the beginning and one at the end.However when it comes to old fashioned meters with needle pointers the observer only makes one reading so we will place a mirror behind the pointer and instruct the observer to line up the needle with its image in the mirror so counteracting the parallax.

 

 

I was able to recover the missing text.

1- Is the article that bad or just presenting another perspective of things that runs counter to one's worldview? They criticise, but do not abandon science.

 

2- Assimilated the difference between accuracy and precision; thanks!

 

3- My contention as those from referenced authors is that subjectivity has a constructive role to play in the scientific process and should not always be frowned upon. For example subjectivity in efference with conclusion resistant to variation in subjective input.

 

4- There are ways of correcting tilting heads, but what about when the difference in lecture comes from the inside of the head as in bias towards a certain outcome?

 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

1- Of course it doesn't, who said it did ? However, maximum caution, beware Will Robinson. We often warn with two very deep and very perceptive cautionary phrases. "The map is not the territory"    Alfred Korzybski " Correlation does not imply causation"  Karl Pearson

2- Perhaps it was lost because you seem to have stuck your reply inside the quote from me.

3- But it also has led to some enormous blunders for instance when kelvin miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of a hundred million in the arrogance of thinking that Physicists of the time knew everything.

 

1- Swansont; Will Robinson is not in danger if subjectivity comes into play in the early stages of the scientific process, when hypothesis is formed. And agree that the map is not the territory and correlation does not imply causation.

2- I did not do anything special for that post, but you can see it being rolled under the quote box.

3- I agree that there are risks involved in putting into play subjectivity in the scientific process. Again, at the start of the process and then confirmed or denied by data.

 

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Why have you revferted to ignoring my important points ?

Do you prefer following to a bunch on non scientific ninnies ?

I was trying to show you how to think for yourself.

I think it's time to conclude that @Luc Turpin doesn't want to be educated to the point where he can see his folly, he prefers the bliss of ignorance; a valid choice, science can't solve everything and belief is a great salve, wrong forum though...

[Luc Turpin]

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think it's time to conclude that @Luc Turpin doesn't want to be educated to the point where he can see his folly, he prefers the bliss of ignorance; a valid choice, science can't solve everything and belief is a great salve, wrong forum though...

My response to Studiot's post was not fully posted; for which I corrected in a following post.

I am on the outside looking inside, which is a different view from those on the inside no longer looking outside.

Edited September 17 by Luc Turpin