How objective is science?

In a sense, science is the pursuit of objectivity. An unattainable goal, but one worth pursuing nonetheless, because of the wonderful things that are revealed along the way.

Scientists are human beings and tend to create hypotheses that fit their own cognitive biases. But good scientists who discover that their cherished hypothesis cannot be supported or verified by empirical evidence will be willing to move on and find a better hypothesis, and maybe modify their own cognitive bias in the process to become that little bit more objective.

It might be said that anyone who seeks to understand the world rather than merely interact with it according to instinct and physical need is a scientist, though perhaps not in a formal sense of the word.

132

The pursuit of a single truth – or an objectivite reality is laudable in the physical sciences were cause and effect can be observed and measured with a degree of significance. However, even here there is an element of human bias and error. Plus the importance and consequence of the findings are open to interpretation by the audience that receives the results. Equally, if you have explored the development of science – you will realise that it has developed from a process of challenges to the presumptions of the person before – people found flaws in the scientists before them and sought to refute their conclusions. If there was a single objective true then this level of disagreement would be impossible.

Also, when using science to objectify human beings you are in difficulty. We each view the world differently based on genetic make up, environment and up bringing – in other words – we live in a subjective reality which means we can view the same phenomena and take an infinite number of meanings from it. None of these meanings are wrong and none are definitive.

I often wonder at the value of objectivity when sometimes merely asking the question is more powerful.

In a sense, science leaves a lot of room for objectivity, but nevertheless, science is merely a series of reasonable hypotheses that dont sound too far-fetched for layman comprehension.

It doesnt matter whether science is objective or not. people are not always ready to accept a new truth. If that were the case, the qwerty keyboard should have been phased out a long ttime ago but life doesnt work like that.

I guess what I am trying to say is tthat science is objective but people are not.

Science is as objective as the assumption and observations that creates the hypothesis that frames the theory of that particular disipline. It is as good as the known facts at that time. If illusions can be observed and make facts according to the knowledge of that time, even illusions can be make science. Not too long ago the earth was flat. Wasnt it. And what is pass on to the consumer at large as “advertorial science”, like “caffeine is good, caffeine is bad” is also arbitrary depending on how you want science or statistics to “lie” according to how you are inclined and how much marketing budget you have. In short it is as objective as the human mind behind the theory. And what does science say about the objectivity of human mind. The human mind can only be 1% objective when all known facts that needs to be known is known. 1% knowledge. And that can only be achieved by a very superior mind far superior than the human mind. Even God’s mind. The Creator. So only Science can only be 1% objective viewed from God’s perspective, where all truths are known. Then there is fairness and justice.

Real science is about 99-44/1% objective… Then there’s political science, religious science, social science… etc… Those are the darker sides of science where objectivity is crafted to meet a certain criteria…

Wow, these are deep questions. Not sure that many are educated enough to throw out any more than an opinion on some of these subjects, which is what I am going to do!

To me science is all about questioning, researching, analysing, and then arriving at a conclusion or interpreting the outcome. Often the greatest scientific discoveries are made quite by accident, and then the process of analysis, etc. starts over again, thus the ‘scientific discoveries’.

I can’t really answer anything about how objective it is, because I’m not a scientist…so I’ll leave that part of it to those with the expertise. It seems to me they are certainly doing something right for our world to be as advanced as it is.

A very thought-provoking and legitimate question indeed.

I once attended a symposium on a similar topic hosted by Professor and novelist Irshad Manji. The summarization of it was that there is more discord within the Science community than there is between Science and Religion.

Scientists challenge their counterparts continuously in every feasible topic of research on who’s right i.e. who’s findings are truly objective, pointing to discrepancies in testing. Leading to revelations that are later discarded as tom foolery.

Finally DK asks a question that is not fully loaded.

Science is just as objective as the people who pay for it allows it to be. If it is Bush science there is no global warming. If it is Al Gore science there is a lot of global warming.

Now here is my question to you. How objective are your questions on Yahoo

✅ Answers

? Why are you asking THIS particular question?

Science is objective if done correctly, some people like Christians approach science with an agenda that is already decided, this is bogus science

Science is based on the idea of verification. We have all sorts of ideas, and any number of these ideas may be correct, in any number of ways. But scientists have disciplined themselves to work in only one category: that which can be verified. Perhaps because of the narrow definition, they have discovered only a certain type of thing. It is very useful to know that within certain parameters, A will always act in a particular way in the presence of B.

But if a scientist tries to go beyond these parameters, to say that one thing is right and another is wrong, it is no longer objective. The saving grace of scientists is their aegis to say that if they find evidence that disputes the hypothesis, then that must be reported, and the old idea must be abandoned, or possibly revised.

Ultimately, science is only as objective as the people who do the research. It’s much the same as asking how representative democracies are, or how tolerant a religion is.

Scientific principles promote objective analysis. Scientific hypotheses and theories are repeatedly tested, and if contradictory evidence is found, they are discarded. Occasionally, individual scientists cling to their favorite theories or refuse to accept others in spite of this. For example, Albert Einstein refused to accept the quantum mechanics, and fought the theory until his death. Likewise, some scientists fought Einstein’s theory of general relativity because it overturned Newton’s law of gravity.

Despite bias of a few individual researchers and the corrupting influence of corporate-sponsored research, science in our culture continues to advance, expelling what doesn’t work and eventually incorporating new hypotheses and theories that withstand the rigors of scientific testing.