Someone here

Is science really "objective "?

49 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Objectivity does not (necessarily) equate to Truth.

Objectivity is a construct that attempts to bypass the role that consiousness plays in constituting the world, in an attempt to gain a "view from nowhere."

Of course a "view from nowhere" is a contradiction in terms, because Reality is always viewed from a somewhere; from particular perspective. 

The shared world we live in intersubjective rather than objective. Insofar as science forgets that objectivity is a second order derivation from our direct experience, it falls into epistemic error.

Scientists try very hard to be objective. That’s why they do double-blind randomized trials. That’s why they have peer review. That’s why they encourage other researchers to try to replicat their  results.

But we are humans and subject to bias. Confirmation bias, expectation bias, selection bias, survivor bias, halo effect… there’s practically no limit to the ways humans can be biased. We do the best we can, and learn as we go.


all that matters is the quality of the present moment. Because that's all there is to reality. A present Moment 😇

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Someone here said:

Scientists try very hard to be objective. That’s why they do double-blind randomized trials. That’s why they have peer review. That’s why they encourage other researchers to try to replicat their  results.

But we are humans and subject to bias. Confirmation bias, expectation bias, selection bias, survivor bias, halo effect… there’s practically no limit to the ways humans can be biased. We do the best we can, and learn as we go.

I think you should read his post again, there is a lot more meat in that then I think you got out of it.

Now don't get me wrong, if I want to build a house I'm going to go to a builder, plumbing a plumber, electrical work an electrician, that said, I think you need to consider some things when you ask about objectivity and "science".

You think thats air your breathing Neo, think again.

Lets go down a rabbit hole.....

Is there a consensus of what objective or science even is?    

Now if you can even get close to answering this, it may start to occur at some point that there is no consensus even among humans what any given words mean, but lets say you can nail down objective, and science.

Do these line up "objectively" to anything "objective" lol, perhaps the consensus and the agreed upon what your talking about isn't even real, but you've come up with all these sciences and measurements proving something that doesn't even prove what you think it does.  It may, feel and seem like it makes sense to all those involved, but does it even equate to Reality.

Now lets say you do determine objective things by the was your using the word.  Now what, there is data, but what does it mean?  

Sky blue.  Apples drop.  Fire burns.  Birds fly.  What is this data without making anything out of it, or about it?  Or another way to say it is, without being consciousness of data and meaning made out of it, what exactly is it?  Do you see the subtly here and how it ties to a question about "objectivity"?   What if consciousness of such data and the meaning that is drawn from it isn't consistent or even personally controlled?  And if so, what would objectivity or even data even mean, especially if its just a universal mind unfolding and being?  

I want a little of everywhere, feel free to ask me more specifically what I mean if your not following.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mu_ I'm actually leaning more towards the postion that science cannot be 100% objective. For the reasons you mentioned and for other reasons as well.

Science tries it’s hardest to be objective. It has measures and procedures to make sure that whatever it observes or measures looks the same to all who observe or measure it, on the assumption that if everyone sees the same thing then that thing must be “objectively” true.

But it isn’t. Measurements are always a bit off, from one measurer to another. Statistical error exists. An experiment performed few decades later suddenly yields different results than it did when performed previously. A genius comes along proposing his own perception of reality, and suddenly all the previous “laws” and “truths” become wrong and the new perception becomes the “objective truth”. No matter how scientists, being human, resist change - change happens, and change undermines the notion of objectivity.

The only place where science is truly objective is in the minds of it’s many worshippers. Still, in the search for “the true truth”, the objective truth, science didn't do much better than religion did in it’s search for the “true God”.


all that matters is the quality of the present moment. Because that's all there is to reality. A present Moment 😇

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Mu_ I'm actually leaning more towards the postion that science cannot be 100% objective. 

Most scientists (or at least those with any degree of sophistication) would readily concede this point.

But most would stop short of questioning the metaphysical assumption that Reality itself is "objective", even if they are willing to admit that science itself can't reach the lofty goal of pure objectivity.

To a mind that's not construct aware the only alternative to an "objective" Reality is solipsism, but that's only the case if one seeks an Absolute ground in one of the two poles of subject-object dualism.

The thought that we can live in a shared Reality that's intersubjective (non-determinate and unable to be fully articulated) takes some epistemic work to arrive at.

Even something as seemingly self evident as an "object" isn't something that exists in nature, because Reality itself is undifferentiated. Rather, "objects" are how Reality is disclosed to embodied beings such as ourselves who need to manipulate our surroundings in order to survive.

 

Edited by DocWatts

"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DocWatts i agree with what you're saying.  Although science is never 100% objective..for the reasons you mentioned...it is still by far our best tool to approach as much objectivity as possible. 

Science relies on objective evidence and accepts no statements about reality to be absolutely and immutably true. So, it uses objective evidence rather than authority to decide between two competing theories. So that's credit specifically for the scientific method. 

unlike Faith which tries to shoehorn evidence into its fixed beliefs, Science fits ideas to objective evidence. Science is not about the Truth but about true enough.

That being said, Science works and allows us to build technology to make our lives easier. You try and build a working satellite network, a functioning helicopter, or, even discover a new treatment for a disease solely relying on the content of sacred texts and Received Wisdom from preachers. Good luck!


all that matters is the quality of the present moment. Because that's all there is to reality. A present Moment 😇

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Someone here said:

it is still by far our best tool to approach as much objectivity as possible. 

l-ve is the best tool to approach objectivity

science is great to uncover understandings of object-subject realities, but we didn't need it to imagine buddhism. by design, there is nothing to do in consciousness, so all entertainments and survival advantages are orthogonal to truth.

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

Science fits ideas to objective evidence.

currently accepted notion of scientific evidence provides a self-referential entanglement of concepts with internal consistency, but it isn't necessarily relevant to more fundamental understandings of consciousness or reality, just how understandings of a game's physics does not always help understanding the player outside the game.

science is amazing compared to some of the historical ideologies, but like any collective structures in consciousness, it will be full of biases since your going to pretend not being me again (again)

576567.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is good for establishing precise lables rooted in consistancy, found through evidence of repeatability. So the more established objectivity comes much later after crunching the subjective data.

In short, it's pattern finding in what initially may be misstaken for randomness or trivial matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nuwu said:

@ZzzleepingBear the patterns did not exist until you imagined them. its self-fulfilling

Yes. Another way to say it is that I may find certain patterns to have values. So contructed imagination becomes easier to digest and to share as opposed inconsistent ones. Self-fulfilling when it comes to the mind in general will always be the case. What you believe becomes your value of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now