Is Science objective?

[MartinM]

What if there is something besides what we can perceive?

There are many things we can't directly perceive; we have indirect methods of studying them, however. In fact, anything which interacts with something we can perceive is open to study. Anything which does not interact with something else we can perceive is irrelevant, since it can't possibly have any effect on us whatsoever, direct or indirect. Indeed, it's not at all clear what it means to say that such a thing exists at all.

 

[HouseApe]

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.

Science is objective, in that it is based upon reality and is repeatable. But don't confuse the concept of objective with the concept of absolute truth. Science can only be based on what is observable (in some manner), and there may exist some attributes of reality that we are not in (or may never be in) a position to observe. Therefore, science may provide a theory about something that accurately reflects everything we observe about that thing, but doesn't absolutely describe all attributes of that thing.

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?

Your last question is the key, and the answer is no. Because if we cannot observe it, it cannot affect us. Therefore, from our POV is doesn't exist.

 

[James T]

angela 2, I don't agree with Kuhn.

 

[angela 2]

angela 2, I don't agree with Kuhn.

O.K. Do you want to say why you don't agree?

 

[James T]

O.K. Do you want to say why you don't agree?

Kuhn wants to deny the possibility of bridging across paradigm shifts that occurs when science steps forward (or sideways, or backwards ). This is the incommensurability issue. Some of the examples I have seen used to describe this include details of how one cannot bridge from say relativitistic equations of motion to Newtonian mechanics. I see this a both possible and appropriate. Metaphysically I see noumena as the higher epistemic property through which one can always, conceivably map through. Not that I would suggest a bijective mapping as being possible, but a mapping nevertheless.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I would describe science as theoretically objective, but not in practice.

 

[angela 2]

Kuhn wants to deny the possibility of bridging across paradigm shifts that occurs when science steps forward (or sideways, or backwards ). This is the incommensurability issue. Some of the examples I have seen used to describe this include details of how one cannot bridge from say relativitistic equations of motion to Newtonian mechanics. I see this a both possible and appropriate. Metaphysically I see noumena as the higher epistemic property through which one can always, conceivably map through. Not that I would suggest a bijective mapping as being possible, but a mapping nevertheless.

How do you define 'noumena'?

 

[419gam]

There are many things we can't directly perceive; we have indirect methods of studying them, however. In fact, anything which interacts with something we can perceive is open to study. Anything which does not interact with something else we can perceive is irrelevant, since it can't possibly have any effect on us whatsoever, direct or indirect. Indeed, it's not at all clear what it means to say that such a thing exists at all.

Exactly, just like a dog whistle. We can not hear or objectively experience the sound made by the whistle because the pitch lies outside the audible range for humans. However we can objectively verify its presence by observing animals responses to it. Its not like we have to subjectively decide whether or not the whistle makes noise based on our own experiences, we can verify the presence of sound objectively even while unable to hear it.

 

[James T]

How do you define 'noumena'?

Things in themselves, as distinct from things as we experience them.

 

[angela 2]

Things in themselves, as distinct from things as we experience them.

Hegel? Plato?