# Is science objective or subjective?



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

What do you think, subjective, objective, or not sure and need to think about it?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Science is supposed to be objective, unless that is, if you are a "creationist".


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

This arguement could apply to global warming as well.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

The academic approach to science is -- or should be -- objective. A search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers. 

A ideological approach to science is all too often subjective ... literally starting with the desired finding/s at hand.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

At what point Michael, do you think to yourself, "Maybe it *is me* and not the rest of the world"?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> The academic approach to science is -- or should be -- objective. A search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.
> 
> A ideological approach to science is all too often subjective ... literally starting with the desired finding/s at hand.


Perfectly put RSS.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Science is objective. Scientists (being human) are sometimes subjective.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Science demands objectivity. That said, study is not done in a vacuum. Humans administer science and have their own biases, subtle or not. Remember also the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which can be oversimplified to say that the fact that you are measuring or observing a phenomenon will have an influence on its results. Whew, enough nerdiness for now. Bill


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Actually, the general though process about science today is that it is subjective. If you rear Thomas Kuhn's "The Theory and Structure of Scientific Revolutions" this will give you a better idea of why science is subjective. 

(One of the big problems is that by your training, if you allow it, your thought process can become so structured that you can not see past your training. That is why so many big scientific discoveries are generated by either very young researchers or people not in the science, for example, plate tectonics. This concept was postulated by a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) but not accepted or even seriously discussed until some very smart people decided to measure magnetic field variability/shifts in the late 1950's - 1960's. Nowadays, all of the theories about pene-planes etc that were universal, have been completely abandoned (too bad because they are useful and can be applied in some areas). The ability to develop and postulate a theory is very subjective.

While the process of testing is generally pretty objective, the thought processes in interpreting the results are usually very subjective (and if not careful, the testing itself). Even when considering mathematics, when looking at the higher level math such as topology and the math behind string theory (stuff that I will never be able to begin to fathom) the people doing the work acknowledge the subjectivity inherent in the research. 

Many universities are now requiring graduate students to take philosophy of science courses that study this issue at depth. Any of the PhD scientists I have talked about this with agree that science is very subjective.


If you Google this question, you get a lot of interesting answers


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I voted "objective." I would hope this is the case, but I'm not sure.

Now, it is probably more obvious, but I suspect that for years, science has been twisted to agree with the arguments some have made - on both sides of many issues.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Richard Leaky, son of famed physical anthropologists Mary and Louis has no formal training from any academic institution. He is a 'grandfathered' anthropologist on his parent's reputation and informal training growing up. Richard discovered an ancient Fire Ring that by dating supported his parent's belief H*mo Sapiens is a very old species and most other hominids discovered are mere sidebranches. Richard drove another highly regarded anthropologist out to examine said ring. And the reaction was that Richard had rather clumsily cleaned up an assembly of charred rocks from a natural burn. Richard's reaction was to drive off, leaving his colleague to walk back, no small effort. That is subjective science. It also is the behavior of those side species.--- PARAGRAPH BREAK on busted 98--- Objective Science? Excavating the multiple site complex below The Reagan Library, the lead archaeologist postulated a rather hoodoo set of rock formations was a male initiation site based on 'guy stuff' we exclusively found. Then I went and did it, finding a cached bundle of deer bone sewing awls for making rabbitfur and tule grass robes- girl's work. Lead archaeologist had to buy that day's pizza and beer.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> At what point Michael, do you think to yourself, "Maybe it *is me* and not the rest of the world"?


At what point do you actually think (subjectively) and stop attacking?

This concept is actually a fascinating subject of which a huge amount has been written. It is worth discussing because science is so oftenn discussed. Cool your parinoia for change.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> At what point do you actually think (subjectively) and stop attacking?
> 
> This concept is actually a fascinating subject of which a huge amount has been written. It is worth discussing because science is so oftenn discussed. Cool your parinoia for change.


LOL, paranoia? How do you get that from the quoted comment? And me attack? Michael, just like your thread where you specifically named me as who you wanted to impress, this thread screams that my jibes to you were the motivation for it. This thread was started specifically to counter those jibes of mine. I really hope you do not think your motivations are lost on anyone here?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, paranoia? How do you get that from the quoted comment? And me attack? Michael, just like your thread where you specifically named me as who you wanted to impress, this thread screams that my jibes to you were the motivation for it. This thread was started specifically to counter those jibes of mine. I really hope you do not think your motivations are lost on anyone here?


Wrong. I really hope you do not think your motivations are lost on anyone too!

Actually, I started the thread becasue it is significant to a lot of what is discussed here.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I've worked with and against enough "scientific" expert witnesses to know that science is subjective, although it pretends to be objective. Most science now is seeking to support a preconceived hypothesis or argument, and is simply marshalling "empirical" evidence to support that position. Of course, the next scientist may trot out his or her evidence to support another position. "Global warming" is a perfect example. The fact is that there are too many variables to know with any sort of scientific certainty what is happening, but that hasn't stopped people from lining up on one side or another of the situation.

Why is this so? Because science long ago ceased to be about pure learning. Nowadays, if you want to get the right grants or get written up in the right journals, you have to have the right position. Also, in much of the scientific world, the scientific method has been replaced by the "precautionary principle," especially in the environmental area. The precautionary principle prescribes that if there is some indication (I hesitate to use the term "evidence," because often it is just anecdotal experience) that there could be a harmful result, you must err on the side of caution and assume the worst will happen. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle; (urging that scientific method be replaced by the precautionary principle):



> "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998


(Science and Environmental Health Network)

Evidence that there "may" be harm outweighs evidence that there "may not" be harm, even if the evidence that there "may not" be harm substantially outweighs the contrary. Thus, for example, a lot of the "evidence" in favor of global warming is highly speculative and only that manmade activities "might' be behind it. That, however, is sold as "science" and as enough to require steps to be taken.

In my state this has shown up big-time in the law. The courts have upheld all sorts of environmental restrictions on the basis of the precautionary principle, even though there is little if any objective evidence that the harm will occur.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> The academic approach to science is -- or should be -- objective. A search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.


Yep, math being the best example ( no room for political machinations there)



> A ideological approach to science is all too often subjective ... literally starting with the desired finding/s at hand.


Mostly in Bio and the behavioral "sciences" IMO.

+1 RSS, got it in one.

I remember a hullabaloo some 10 years ago about some kind of "feminist physics". Seemed like some radical feminists (womens' studies majors IIRC) thought physics was too "patriarchal" or some such nonsense. Too bad objective reality was such an obstacle for them.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Why is this so? Because science long ago ceased to be about pure learning. Nowadays, if you want to get the right grants or get written up in the right journals, you have to have the right position.
> 
> Also, in much of the scientific world, the scientific method has been replaced by the "precautionary principle," especially in the environmental area. The precautionary principle prescribes that if there is some indication (I hesitate to use the term "evidence," because often it is just anecdotal experience) that there could be a harmful result, you must err on the side of caution and assume the worst will happen. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle; (urging that scientific method be replaced by the precautionary principle):
> 
> ...


Interesting thoughts. I think that the question goes a lot deeper than this with good science (the groundbreaking research type) often being done by people who are able to think subjectively and see a new way of looking at data.

Maybe because I am a geologist, I am warped by this field (all of the beer drinking on college geology field trips), but in science we never see all of the data, its just not possible. There are also new ways of looking at existing data sets that open up new ideas and theories. Therefore, there has to be some subjectivity. Without being subjective, you don't get far or find many new things.

I don't really want to comment on the environmental aspect other than while there is a lot of truth in what is written, if it is someone's backyard or health potentially is affected, this opens up a whole new world of issues.

I will check out your web site, but I think a lot of that has always been present.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Precautionary science is the stepchild of the great Iroquis Confederacy's 7 generations principle. Every major action was discussed with the parameter 'How will this effect the next 7 generations of Iroquis.' It is, unfortunately the swing of the pendulum from a worldwiew we can blow out a New England farm and just move to Ohio, Blow that one out and move to California, blow it out and,and---- Oh high tech will feed us all and clean the air until we can move to planet X and start blowing out farms again.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

science is OBJECTIVE as hypothesis and experimentation has to be replicated in independent laboratory conditions over and over again.

you have your formula and your conclusions , it is then tested by other scientists who have to come to your conclusions rationally or it is no longer scientific.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Calculus has a liberal bias.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Science can be objective, but the selective interpretation of the results is quite often subjective.

Homer Simpson on science and statistics:
"*Homer: *People can make up with statistics to prove anything, 40% of all people know that."


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Statistics are not science but a tool that can help you understand trends, distributions, etc. Incorrectly used, they are bogus. Even correctly applied, if applied without understanding the causality behind the results, the results can be at best meaningless and at worst, interpreted to mean the wrong things.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

english_gent said:


> science is OBJECTIVE as hypothesis and experimentation has to be replicated in independent laboratory conditions over and over again.
> 
> you have your formula and your conclusions , it is then tested by other scientists who have to come to your conclusions rationally or it is no longer scientific.


The problem comes when your rational and reproducible experiments and conclusions are based on incomplete data (or a flawed theory). If you are only looking at one part of the picture, even if your results are reproducible and defensible based on that particular data, they are limited to that data and do not explain the full picture/reality.

One example is the oil fields in Texas. Very simplified, at one point basically the theoy was that all of the oil reservoirs were caused by structure (folds and faults in the subsurface relating to salt domes creating reservoirs). The theory worked to help find lots of oil. Some pretty smart or innovative people postualted that the paleogeography however was a more important control. Applying this theory, a lot more oil was discovered and the old theory was shown to have some faults (pun intended). Unfortunately, many of the geologists then threw away the old theory and focused only on the new. When some even more innovative people started combining the theories, they found even more oil. More changes have since allowed even more oil to be found.

In science, you never see or have all of the data, hence theory and subjectivity. Even if you do hae all of the data (pretty hard to impossible), there are competeing but reproducible ways of analyzing it.

In my field, we tend to go to the weight of evidence over one specific equation or way of looking at a problem.

I think so anyway.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Statistics are not science but a tool that can help you understand trendsm distributions, etc. Incorrectly used, they are bogus. Even correctly applied, if applied without understanding the causality behind the results, the results can be at best meaningless and at worst, interpreted to mean the wrong things.


I have a friend that is a Harvard trained bio-statistician. He now runs research at the U of A cancer center. One of his mottos is that good studies require little of his help, bad studies require much massaging.

To the point of this thread though, I think we have a conflation suppressed by some folks here. "Science" =! "scientists". Ponder that.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have a friend that is a Harvard trained bio-statistician. He now runs research at the U of A cancer center. One of his mottos is that good studies require little of his help, bad studies require much massaging.
> 
> To the point of this thread though, I think we have a conflation suppressed by some folks here. "Science" =! "scientists". Ponder that.


I am worried. I agree! (you can't leave scientists out of the "equation" however, without them (broadly defined), you may not get much science done).


----------

