Is Science objective?

[AimlessEMF]

This isn't an argument it's more of a question because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

My question is if science is based on our senses and observations is it objective? We all have similar experiences and one could say that points us to believe that science is in fact objective.
What if there is something besides what we can perceive?
I don't mean things like God, spirits, and angels, but rather small pieces of information about reality that our senses don't perceive that perhaps some other species or being might (or maybe the information isn't perceived by anything).
Science seems more to subjective to the human experience and senses.
Does it really paint a picture that corresponds to reality as it is or does it paint something that corresponds to reality only as we perceive it?

Oh and one more question does it ever really matter if we don't perceive reality as it really is?

 

[Vylo]

Objectivity comes from the intersection of many subjective views.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Well that's why reproducibility is one of the most important aspect of scientific research. You could come to a conclusion that is completely wrong the first time, but as you and other reproduce the experiment, you will find yourself getting closer and closer to a more sound conclusion.

 

[Ledifni]

This isn't an argument it's more of a question because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

My question is if science is based on our senses and observations is it objective? We all have similar experiences and one could say that points us to believe that science is in fact objective.
What if there is something besides what we can perceive?
I don't mean things like God, spirits, and angels, but rather small pieces of information about reality that our senses don't perceive that perhaps some other species or being might (or maybe the information isn't perceived by anything).
Science seems more to subjective to the human experience and senses.
Does it really paint a picture that corresponds to reality as it is or does it paint something that corresponds to reality only as we perceive it?

Oh and one more question does it ever really matter if we don't perceive reality as it really is?

The answer to your question is that science describes our observations. Is there a "reality" that is different from the one our senses perceive? Do we all perceive reality in the same way? These are not questions that science addresses. Since science cannot observe the unobservable, anything of that realm is a matter of faith, not science.

 

[AimlessEMF]

Does that mean that reality is unknowable? We might have a functional view but can we ever really know the exact picture of reality?

 

[Ledifni]

Does that mean that reality is unknowable? We might have a functional view but can we ever really know the exact picture of reality?

Not exactly. It means that our only realistic option is to simply assume that our common observations represent a common underlying reality. It means that if you want to hypothesize an "inner reality" that is somehow different from the one we all perceive, that is your faith -- but it cannot ever be supported by observations or science.

 

[jayem]

Historically, the scientific method has worked quite well so far. Not always perfect, but by using observation and testing, we've learned more about nature than by any other means. And in general, what we've learned is reliable, although good science is always tentative, and embraces the ability to correct itself. Now I recognize that this is an inductive argument, and is limited by the problem of induction. But based on its overall track record, I think science is very valid, and I see no reason to doubt it.

 

[angela 2]

Historically, the scientific method has worked quite well so far. Not always perfect, but by using observation and testing, we've learned more about nature than by any other means. And in general, what we've learned is reliable, although good science is always tentative, and embraces the ability to correct itself. Now I recognize that this is an inductive argument, and is limited by the problem of induction. But based on its overall track record, I think science is very valid, and I see no reason to doubt it.

That's a reasoned statement.

Science IMO is objective within the ruling paradigm. In other words, it's objectivity is confined to that which is accepted by its discipline.

But is is when people begin to question the ruling paradigm that huge breakthroughs are really made. And this questioning is usually not objective. It is done on the basis of slim evidence and is often little more than a hunch at first.

We can think of Christianity as being a different paradigm. Within its own paradigm, it can be just as objective as any scientific work.

 

[Ledifni]

That's a reasoned statement.

Science IMO is objective within the ruling paradigm. In other words, it's objectivity is confined to that which is accepted by its discipline.

But is is when people begin to question the ruling paradigm that huge breakthroughs are really made. And this questioning is usually not objective. It is done on the basis of slim evidence and is often little more than a hunch at first.

Well, ok, like what breakthroughs? I can't think of any.

 

[angela 2]

Well, ok, like what breakthroughs? I can't think of any.

Einstein's theory of relativity which rewrote Newton's understanding of gravity.

 

[Ledifni]

Einstein's theory of relativity which rewrote Newton's understanding of gravity.

The research and hypotheses that went into the ToE were completely scientific and, so far as science defines such a thing, completely objective. It did not involve "questioning the ruling paradigm." In fact, what Einstein did is exactly how science works. If he had not done what he did, then he would have been "questioning the ruling paradigm," because science dictates that if a prevailing theory conflicts with the evidence, that theory must be replaced by a better one.

The ToE was not formulated on "slim evidence," nor was it "little more than a hunch." It was a highly mathematical theory of physics that directly proceeded from evidence that very clearly contradicted Newtonian mechanics.

EDIT: Please understand that I'm not trying to be harsh. Many people seem to have the misconception that science is a guess; that other ways of finding evidence have proved equally successful; and that useful facts are often determined by methods other than science. However, history shows that science tends to be as accurate as it is possible to be given the evidence we have available; that no other way of finding evidence has successfully and consistently produced things that humanity can use; and that every fact that you learn in school was discovered by science.

Other ways of finding evidence do produce "facts." However, these "facts" are neither verifiable nor useful in technology, industry, or social planning. They cannot be evidenced and thus they cannot be widely accepted social opinion -- because belief in these ideas is a matter of faith and not of evidence.

Once any given faith-based idea is supported by observable evidence, then it is in the realm of science and can be studied by science. Until then, it's a matter of personal preference because it cannot be verified by studying the evidence. Personally, I do not see how you can call a speculative idea that is believed by faith and personal choice a "breakthrough." Either it has been verified, in which case it may be a breakthrough, or it's waiting for verification, in which case we don't really know if it's correct or not.

 

[jayem]

We can think of Christianity as being a different paradigm. Within its own paradigm, it can be just as objective as any scientific work.

That is true, as stated.

But what is encompassed by a religious paradigm may be impossible to verify.

As noted, Einstein's work caused a paradigm shift from Newtonian mechanics. But relativistic mechanics wasn't totally accepted immediately. It still had to be objectively verified. There is ample experimental evidence that time does expand for a body in motion relative to one at rest. And that light does bend in a gravitational field. Relativity allows predictions that can be tested.

But how can one verify an ancient miracle? What objective evidence is there that Jesus turned water into wine, or that the earth stopped its rotation when Joshua prayed? Is it possible to show that a communion wafer really turns into the body of Christ? Religious paradigms usually involve supernatural phenomena, which are impossible to validate using the scientific method.

 

[Ledifni]

That is true, as stated.

But what is encompassed by a religious paradigm may be impossible to verify.

As noted, Einstein's work caused a paradigm shift from Newtonian mechanics.

I believe she is talking about the scientific paradigm, which was upheld rather than violated by Einstein's work.

 

[AimlessEMF]

Not exactly. It means that our only realistic option is to simply assume that our common observations represent a common underlying reality. It means that if you want to hypothesize an "inner reality" that is somehow different from the one we all perceive, that is your faith -- but it cannot ever be supported by observations or science.

What if the common underlying reality isn't everything. I'm not arguing that the common underlying reality is wrong. I'm just trying to say what if it isn't complete.
Isn't science subjective to human experience and senses?

For example, if we tommorrow discovered life on another planet known as, i don't know, Zultan.

So these Zultanians they have a new sense that we don't have. Not like ESP or psychic powers, but rather something mundane like smell or sight, but at the same time not those just some other sense that gives them some other bit of empirical information.

Their science would be different from ours, wouldn't it?
They would be able to perceive some information about reality that we would not.

What if they also didn't have hearing. Then our science would be subjective to us and theirs to them, correct?

Does this make any sense?

 

[Ledifni]

What if the common underlying reality isn't everything. I'm not arguing that the common underlying reality is wrong. I'm just trying to say what if it isn't complete.
Isn't science subjective to human experience and senses?

For example, if we tommorrow discovered life on another planet known as, i don't know, Zultan.

So these Zultanians they have a new sense that we don't have. Not like ESP or psychic powers, but rather something mundane like smell or sight, but at the same time not those just some other sense that gives them some other bit of empirical information.

Their science would be different from ours, wouldn't it?
They would be able to perceive some information about reality that we would not.

What if they also didn't have hearing. Then our science would be subjective to us and theirs to them, correct?

Does this make any sense?

Yes, it does. But as I pointed out, if this is the case we obviously have no way to know it. I would imagine that, since we are quite good at indirectly observing things we can't observe directly, no other sense would show things that we cannot find by some other method. Even if humans had only sight and nothing else, we would still be able to find all the information we've found with other senses -- it would just take longer.

But yes, there's a possibility that a race exists with a sense that shows things no other sense can possibly show. If so, then when we meet that race we can study the newly revealed parts of reality. Until then, we have no way to know of it and so as far as we are concerned it doesn't exist.

Thus, realism dictates that we assume there is nothing beyond what we observe, for the simple reason that the things we observe are the only things about which we can learn. If we can't observe it then we don't know what it's like, and any consideration of it is pure speculation that gets us nowhere. We could just make something up about a hidden, unobservable world -- but we'd just be making it up.

And please, don't compare religion to the Zultanians. If we met these Zultanians we'd expect them to show some evidence of this unknown sense before we could study it; likewise, if religious people have an inner sense that reveals what nobody else can see, then they need to show some evidence of it. As it is, we've got some very compelling evidence that there isn't any such inner sense -- the fact that every religious person's inner sense tells him/her something completely different from and contradictory to that of the next religious person.

 

[AimlessEMF]

And please, don't compare religion to the Zultanians. If we met these Zultanians we'd expect them to show some evidence of this unknown sense before we could study it; likewise, if religious people have an inner sense that reveals what nobody else can see, then they need to show some evidence of it. As it is, we've got some very compelling evidence that there isn't any such inner sense -- the fact that every religious person's inner sense tells him/her something completely different from and contradictory to that of the next religious person.

Actually I wasn't planning on it.
I don't think I put religion into this post at all.
I don't think I did anyway.

Thanks for the responses, they made a lot of sense.

 

[Ledifni]

Actually I wasn't planning on it.
I don't think I put religion into this post at all.
I don't think I did anyway.

Thanks for the responses, they made a lot of sense.

No, I know you didn't. And if it seemed rude of me to add that caveat, I apologize. I just find that it's often better to address common arguments in my posts so that the responses will be uncommon arguments that I haven't already addressed or thought about.

 

[angela 2]

Religious paradigms usually involve supernatural phenomena, which are impossible to validate using the scientific method.

That's true.

All I am saying is that given the fact of paradigm shifts, the scientific method may be more subjective that commonly supposed. It is possible to verify (or better, to falsify, ala Feuerbach) a scientific fact only within the ruling paradigm.

When science goes to a new paradigm, it does so more on faith than on evidence.

Again, I am not saying that science and religion are identical. I only want to point out that the scientific methold is somewhat less than perfectly objective.

 

[James T]

All I am saying is that given the fact of paradigm shifts, the scientific method may be more subjective that commonly supposed. It is possible to verify (or better, to falsify, ala Feuerbach) a scientific fact only within the ruling paradigm.

Hmm falsify, Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend. Kuhn covered paradigm shifts in some depth. He talked about the incommensurability of varying paradigms. I am inclined to consider reality as being and the paradigms corresponding to one another through reality, which is after all what all the scientific paradigms attempt to do.

I am not sure that scientific method is more subjective than commonly supposed, perhaps from a lay perspective, but scientists know that what they do is create subjective interpretations of their observations.

When science goes to a new paradigm, it does so more on faith than on evidence.

No.

 

[angela 2]

No.

hmmm You seem to have read all the things I have. So you must know Kuhn argues otherwise.