Science and Objectivity

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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 

The definition that applies to the topic is (a) and what is being used is (b), which is exactly the situation the fallacy of equivocation refers to

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

The author’s context does exclude it.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

Again, this is not the definition that was being used in the original discussion.

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

No it's not, it's a parallax of the same view; something @studiot tried to teach you, that you've ignored...

[Luc Turpin]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

1-The definition that applies to the topic is (a) and what is being used is (b), which is exactly the situation the fallacy of equivocation refers to

2-The author’s context does exclude it.

Again, this is not the definition that was being used in the original discussion.

1- So, do you agree that there is and should be some amount of required subjectivity at the onset of the scientific process and this has to be "objectivised" through data at the outset of the process? 

2- I will be revisiting the text and I agree that it should not exclude 'a good match with data is what makes a good explanation. This is an unconditional statement

3- This is not a definition, but a statement on my part. Allowing for some form of constructive subjectivity in the beginning of the scientific provides opportunities for seing things differently.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No it's not, it's a parallax of the same view; something @studiot tried to teach you, that you've ignored...

I did not ignore the parallax example, but made reference to it by stating that different result interpretations were less an issue of optics, but more of bias.

[studiot]

2 hours 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...

Thank you Dimreaper, I am inclined to agree with you.  +1

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

Glad to hear it.

So your next task is to learn about 'bias' which you have demonstrated a lack of understanding about.

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

- 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.

I keep telling ypou that subjective is acknowledged and accepted by Science as a fact of life, just as rainstorms are.

So Science takes the very sensible attitude of wearing a 'raincoat'.

My phrase was 'subjectivity contained and controlled', a point to which you have not replied.

So here are four true stories, the day after the inquiry opens into the sub Titan disaster.

1.  The Titan disaster. Result of being controlled by the subjective approach by Rush  5 dead including Rush himself.
    
2.  During the 1960s - 1980s the americans sold lots of 'Starfighters' to multiple friendly air forces around the world, including their own. They were generally regarded as an excellent aircraft.
   One air force and one alone had major reliability problems  - the West German - they had up to a couple of dozen quite literally 'fall out of the sky' for no apparant reason.
   The problem was eventually traced to the 'proud' german subjectivity of their fitters.
   The maintenance manual specified that certain critical components should be replaced after a specified time as a matter of routine.
   The German fitters did something no one else did. They took the parts out, examined them and subjectively pronounced them still fit for purpose.
   So they put them back, instead of replacing them.
   Despite there being a whole science of replacement of critical parts available.
    
3. The americans themselves were not immune to this sort of stupidity.
   Underrated seals killed several Apollo astronauts.
    
4.  Now some good news.
   I don't know whether Fleming was being objective or subjective but he nearly threw out the original penecillin cultures as failures.
   Either way his flexibility allowed him to spot the magic effect and antibiotics were born.

 

Edited September 17 by studiot

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

1-So your next task is to learn about 'bias' which you have demonstrated a lack of understanding about.

2- I keep telling ypou that subjective is acknowledged and accepted by Science as a fact of life, just as rainstorms are.So Science takes the very sensible attitude of wearing a 'raincoat'.

3- My phrase was 'subjectivity contained and controlled', a point to which you have not replied.

4-So here are four true stories, the day after the inquiry opens into the sub Titan disaster.

1.  The Titan disaster. Result of being controlled by the subjective approach by Rush  5 dead including Rush himself.
2.  During the 1960s - 1980s the americans sold lots of 'Starfighters' to multiple friendly air forces around the world, including their own.

 

1- I am all ears to learn about "bias"

2- You keep telling me that the subjective is acknowledged and accepted by Science, but when I bring the topic up, I can sense the unease and tension about the subject matter. I am not sure that all scientists would agree with your statement. There is also the matter of what kind of subjectivity is at play. If I say bias in worldview, then I get a much stonger response than say parallax

3- I would modify your phrase to "subjectivity contained and controlled through data and facts".

4- Letting subjectivity rule without containment and control would be a disaster of titanic proportion.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

I would also add that I don't always understand your writing, which makes it harder for me to see your point.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- So, do you agree that there is and should be some amount of required subjectivity at the onset of the scientific process and this has to be "objectivised" through data at the outset of the process? 

I will not comment when you are so easily switching between definitions of subjective, because I can’t be sure what you mean

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

3- This is not a definition, but a statement on my part. Allowing for some form of constructive subjectivity in the beginning of the scientific provides opportunities for seing things differently.

It’s a statement that uses a definition of subjective that is not the definition indicated in the OP’s contrast between being objective and subjective.

It’s kind of pointless to use the second definition; all science involves people using their minds. In that sense of the word it’s all subjective, so there’s nothing to discuss. But the discussion was framed as subjective as opposed to objective, i.e. whether interpretation or feeling is in play.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- I am all ears to learn about "bias"

I have already told you that there are many words with special meanings in Science and that some of these have more than one special meaning.

Bias is one such.

Transistors will not work without bias.

'Non return to zero' is undesireable in instrumentatation as it leads to measurement bias.
yet many older mechanical measurementsw had this feature.

I already told you that objective has another meaning in Science, but received no response.

Did you look it up ?

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- You keep telling me that the subjective is acknowledged and accepted by Science, but when I bring the topic up, I can sense the unease and tension about the subject matter. I am not sure that all scientists would agree with your statement. There is also the matter of what kind of subjectivity is at play. If I say bias in worldview, then I get a much stonger response than say parallax

It's all part of being prepared to accept 'what is'  and then to make the best of it.

I think I also mentioned Limit State Theory in this context, but again received no response.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- I would modify your phrase to "subjectivity contained and controlled through data and facts".

What difference does adding data and facts, both of which enjoy multiple disputable definitions, make ??

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- Letting subjectivity rule without containment and control would be a disaster of titanic proportion.

We are agreed

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I would also add that I don't always understand your writing, which makes it harder for me to see your point.

So you ask for elaboration where ?

[Luc Turpin]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

1- I will not comment when you are so easily switching between definitions of subjective, because I can’t be sure what you mean

2- It’s a statement that uses a definition of subjective that is not the definition indicated in the OP’s contrast between being objective and subjective.

3-It’s kind of pointless to use the second definition; all science involves people using their minds. In that sense of the word it’s all subjective, so there’s nothing to discuss. But the discussion was framed as subjective as opposed to objective, i.e. whether interpretation or feeling is in play.

1-Let's then agree then to the use of the first definition

2- I am not getting this; how is "allowing for some form of constructive subjectivity in the beginning of the scientific provides opportunities for seing things differently" with provided defintions; Objective - objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it;  Subjective - which is the claim that perception emerges form the subject's point of view; 

3- Pointless to use, so let's not use it; agree with the rest of your statement.

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

1-Transistors will not work without bias. 'Non return to zero' is undesireable in instrumentatation as it leads to measurement bias. yet many older mechanical measurementsw had this feature.

2- I already told you that objective has another meaning in Science, but received no response. Did you look it up ?It's all part of being prepared to accept 'what is'  and then to make the best of it.

3-I think I also mentioned Limit State Theory in this context, but again received no response.

4-What difference does adding data and facts, both of which enjoy multiple disputable definitions, make ??

5-So you ask for elaboration where ?

1- Please elaborate on transitors not working without bias

2- I provided a definition of objectivity for the thread; means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. Here is another one from wiki: In science, objectivity refers to attempts to do higher quality research by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs, while focusing mainly on proven facts and evidence. Please provide yours as I was unable to find it in the thread.

3- Please elaborate on Limit State Theory.

4- Data and facts turn the subjective into the objective.

5- Now I am asking for elaboration.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- Please elaborate on transitors not working without bias

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/amplifier/transistor-biasing.html

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- I provided a definition of objectivity for the thread; means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. Here is another one from wiki: In science, objectivity refers to attempts to do higher quality research by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs, while focusing mainly on proven facts and evidence. Please provide yours as I was unable to find it in the thread.

First of all I already told you right at the beginning of this thread why that definition is unsatisfactory. It is because it automaticdally rules out the subject having any knowledge of the objectivity of what he is doing which is clearly not the case in many of the examples I have given you.

When a scientist genuinely doesn't know how objective she is, she say exactly that.

I have also told you several times objectively in science aligns with repeatability of result over most, if not all 'subjects'.

Here I must confess my lack of objectivity since I really don't know what you mean by 'subject' as suspect you are again employing the wrong word.   Note I have always used words like observer.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Please elaborate on Limit State Theory.

Again I have offered this more than once and so once again the ethos of limit state theory is that since for many processes, designs, calculations, constructions and so on we cannot know the exact values which may also be probabilistic, so we adopt the policy " The probability of being wrong is a known acceptably low level"

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- Data and facts turn the subjective into the objective.

No if they  are incorrect, irrelevant, inappropriate, incomplete.

Further you didn't answer my request to tell me what you mean by data and facts.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

5- Now I am asking for elaboration.

Somewhat so read up.

 

Have you found out yet what Science might mean by an objective  ?

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/amplifier/transistor-biasing.html

 

1- First of all I already told you right at the beginning of this thread why that definition is unsatisfactory. It is because it automaticdally rules out the subject having any knowledge of the objectivity of what he is doing which is clearly not the case in many of the examples I have given you.

2-When a scientist genuinely doesn't know how objective she is, she say exactly that.

3-I have also told you several times objectively in science aligns with repeatability of result over most, if not all 'subjects'. Here I must confess my lack of objectivity since I really don't know what you mean by 'subject' as suspect you are again employing the wrong word.   Note I have always used words like observer.

4-Again I have offered this more than once and so once again the ethos of limit state theory is that since for many processes, designs, calculations, constructions and so on we cannot know the exact values which may also be probabilistic, so we adopt the policy " The probability of being wrong is a known acceptably low level"

5- No if they  are incorrect, irrelevant, inappropriate, incomplete.

6- Have you found out yet what Science might mean by an objective  ?

1- Transistor bias has nothing to do with human bias in science. So "knowledge of objectivity" negates subject perception? The subject is still there to perceive what he believes to be objectivity, which, again is not 100% infalible.

2- And what happens if she-he believes she-he is objective when for no fault of her-his own, she-he is not objective or as objective as she-he believes to be?

3- Please define "subject"???

4- I agree that for many processes, designs, calculations, constructions the exact values is unknown, but the probability of being wrong is a known acceptably low level"

5- I took for granted that data, facts were correct, relevant and complete. Data - facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true

6- no

 

 

Edited September 17 by Luc Turpin

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- Transistor bias has nothing to do with human bias in science.

I didn't say that it had anything to do with human bias.

I did say that you should be careful of wading into a subject you know next to nothing about and start preaching to those who know (considerably) more.

What did I actually say about transistor bias  and how does anything you have said negate it ?

 

you seem to have mixed up answers to point 2 with what follows.

6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So "knowledge of objectivity" negates subject perception? The subject is still there to perceive what he believes to be objectivity, which, again is not 100% infalible.

2- And what happens if she-he believes she-he is objective when for no fault of is own, he is not objective or as objective as he believes to be?

Belief is for religion, not Science.

Please take it elsewhere, you still have failed to follow my reasoning, which is based on an analysis of  your words, not mine.

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Please define "subject"???

Again your words not mine, which is why I asked you to define them.

 

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- I agree that for many processes, designs, calculations, constructions the exact values, the probability of being wrong is a known acceptably low level"

Thank you

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

5- I took for granted that the data, facts were correct, relevant and complete.Data-facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true

Scientists are not entitled to 'take things for granted'

Again that harps back to religion.

 

11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

6- no

So you are not really taking in what is said to you and Dimreaper is correct.

Look up 'objective lens'.