Science tries to be objective by telling it how it is. However, the data and observations are recorded by humans, which are naturally subjective since we can interpret the same thing differently. Is there a way for us to do science while still being objective?
2006-08-20 08:48:11 · 12 answers · asked by the redcuber 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Because science is a human endeavor, like all human endeavors, it is inherently imperfect and imprecise to some degree. For example much of what was assumed or hypothesized in 19th century science was overturned in the 20th century (phlogiston and vitalism are two i know off the bat).
But science, unlike other human endeavors, has the ability to constantly retool its models of the physical world by testing its own theories and hypotheses repeatedly using the scientific method.
Evolution, atomic theory, thermodynamics, molecular biology, all cornerstones of 20th century science have been tested over and over again. And they have lead to new fields of study and new technology.
Misguided ideas, if they are purporting a major breakthrough, are ferreted out quickly (remember cold fusion?). While indiscretions may go unnoticed, they will be found when and if more study is applied to them.
Science is imperfect, but self correcting, and by many observers working on the same problem, we can come to a objective understanding of a physical system, provided the experiments validate the theories.
2006-08-21 02:03:59 · answer #1 · answered by DrSean 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My point exactly. Since science is monitored by humans who are subject to err and have bias, science cannot be totally objective. The closest we can come is to get a general consensus among scientists.
2006-08-20 08:58:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only are humans subjective, but they design experiments that are subjective. people are out to prove something, and will usually make an experiment that will only pick up positive results and not pick up negative results. even if they were to design an experiment that would supposedly be entirely objective, the equipment used in the experiment would cause it to be a different value than if the equipment was not used.
2006-08-20 09:17:29 · answer #3 · answered by Stand-up Philosopher 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it can not be totally objective because of human nature. But it can come pretty much close to it
2006-08-20 08:58:07 · answer #4 · answered by Duke 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you're saying science is flawed because humans are flawed..
are you a libertarian?
we do the same experiment over and over, repeat the results, and prove the theories beyond reasonable doubt. Can we be wrong? yep. So what.
There are no omniscient perspectives. If there was, there'd be no need to figure anything out.
2006-08-20 11:53:31 · answer #5 · answered by -.- 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes you are right mistakes can be made and at all times we find what has been said is not accurate and after all humans make errors in every day life why not in science, but scientiest do work very hard and it takes many researches to arrive at a conclusion, and alot of what they do is accurate
2006-08-20 09:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by cluelesskat maria 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is impossible for science to be 100% objective, as it still requires faith that what you are seeing is correct.
2006-08-20 08:53:47 · answer #7 · answered by baghyrha 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's always some level of subjectivity and some ground for discussion
2006-08-20 08:55:29 · answer #8 · answered by virgilio costa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is why everything (methods, instruments, process) must be recorded. Replication is the key to "objectivity".
2006-08-20 08:57:26 · answer #9 · answered by Raul Vazquez 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
true scientists, i think, would say that science and religion, spirituality, etc, are inter-connected in every way possible...
and there is no such thing as true "objectivity," at least for humans, that is...
2006-08-20 09:57:36 · answer #10 · answered by Dizzie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋