Talk:Objectivity (science)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjbaggins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

AfD. The AfD notice seems out of date and missing from the system. --Salix alba (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice quote

Heres a nice quote on the subject:

The objectivity which seems to be guaranteed by a God's-eye view itself suggests a form of detatchment. One of the prized vitues of science is its objectivity, its apparent willingness to be led by evidence alone and not by by prejudice. Yet even here absolute detatchment form all points of view is impossible. The breakdown of positivsm and the emphesis on the priority of theories has only served to emphesis how a scientist who is totally detatched from a conceptual scheme will have no means of discriminating between pairs of realities. Science without concepts is blind. The objectivity it has to aim at is not the detatchment of the umpire, who supports nether side, but the objectivity of the searcher after truth, who is only concernerd to discover what is in fact the case. There is no virtue in being detatched from true theory. The problem is knowing which one it is. The desire for a neutral point of view beyond all theories is mistaken. It can only serve to foster the idea that objective truth is imposible to come by. If truth in science is a property of theory, we arrive at the absurd conclusion that objectivity and truth, so far from being virtually synonmous are in fact opposed to each other. Rogger Trigg, Rationality and Science, Blackwell, 1993.

Uh-um. Trigg's Argument 1. "Objectivity - [science's] willingness to be led by evidence alone and not by prejudice.. suggests a form of detachment" 2. BUT, "Absolute detachment from all points of view is impossible" 3. THEREFORE, objectivity is impossible

The logical flaw: unstated, unsupported and unproved assertion that "detachment from all points of view" is necessary in order "to be led by evidence alone and not by prejudice".

But at least that Trigg character understands sophistry and attempts to deceit his readers. Thank you for respecting our mental faculties, Mr. Trigg. Most postpodernists mostly produce tubs upon tubs of incoherent verbal diarrhea for internal consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.99.119 (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A quirky clause in the intro

to make predictions that can be tested independent from the the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them

Isn't testing predicated upon there being an individual scientist around to witness a result? If so, wouldn't that make any sentence containing the above clause entirely tautological? Theavatar3 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it can be tested by mutliple people in different labs. Even people who are not scientists. Why is that a tautology? David D. (Talk) 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not. However, anything that can be trivially reproduced is, perhaps, of little value to start with.

I would argue that the most informativ e experiments are the simple ones. It's not the experiment that counts but the ideas that lead to the experiment. A good example is the idea that a feather and hammer will fall at the same rate (assuming no air friction). Remember they did that experiment on the moon? Now that was simple AND dramatic! Also repeatable. I think the original form of this experiment was dome with different sized cannonballs. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Simplicity is the hallmark of all good things. However, as the world appears to be far from universally simple...

That is clear, otherwise science would be out of business. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As business would be out of science.

Conclusion: business = science. See also The Dismal Science, economics. Also: "All books are purely autobiographical" Theavatar3 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the referenced line is a tautology. However, it appears this line has been withdrawn? --Stephenrwheeler (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Objectivity

I know it isn't fashionable, but this article needed some balance from the wooly headed pomo brigade. So I added it. Objectivity isn't the slam dunk that Sokal and Dawkins think it is. ElectricRay 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole approach to this subject is quite primitive. It is useless without mentioning post-marxian materialistic philosophies and discussing, for instance, the term objective reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.230.241 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge-to proposals

I've removed the proposals to merge to Objectivity (philosophy) and to merge to Scientific method. These have both been in place 60 days or more, with no discussion or movement on the proposals. This article now serves as a convenient link from science and scientific method, perhaps among other articles. ... Kenosis 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiablity to testability

I changed `verifiability' to `testability'. Verifiability is not described in the wikipedia as a scientific concept of induction, but an IT concept of deduction. So it is not in line with Popper to link to it from `scientific objectivity', i.e. from this page. I used `testability' as replacement, not `falsifiability', because `testability' refers to a goal, but `falsifiability' to a method of achieving that goal or a conviction about how the goal can be achieved. So `testability' is a more general term. This also means that I do not agree to merge `falsifiability' and `testability'. Rumostra (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph 3

Paragraph 3) This paragraph should provide an example of a situation within which it is possible for applications of the scientific method to yield subjective outcomes. I sense a SMALL element of truth to what the introduction sections says, but I doubt that the quantitative DEGREE of truth of the paragraph would justify its length as relates to the rest of the article. Let us suppose that the OBJECT under consideration is temperature variation and the rate of heat transfer between two bodies made of the same material but of differing temperatures (I have been liberal in my interpretation of the notion of ‘object’ – if this is not what is meant by object, then perhaps the article should DEFINE what it means by a scientific object).

It what way could one legitimately suppose that the selection of temperature is subjective? One argumentation would be that the atoms and particles (which are ultimately of a quantum nature) of which the material is made from exhibit MANY other properties besides those associated with thermal vibration (they have magnetic spin, and UV characteristics other than IR characteristics). We are selecting of those many properties only a specific type of property (thermal vibration/temperature/IR properties) in an attempt to see whether, by keeping track of this one property which is similar in both the hot and cold materials, we can efficiently PREDICT how this property will vary with time (this is essentially deeply tied into the idea that there is some information-theoretic “economy of analysis” which enables us to mathematically predict how it is that the temperature might evolve with time, we the rate of heat transfer between the two thermally different objects being proportional to their temperature difference). If we couldn’t predict how temperature would evolve with time, then the scientific method would not be so successful and we would not think so highly of scientific objectivity. I suppose the implicit assumption within the specific instance of this experiment is that, if the two objects are identical in all respects (ie: all the other properties such as magnetic spin, etc… are _controlled_ for), then it is not possible for these other properties to affect the temperature of the object (which may be a suspect assumption). Or, rather, it is most likely that the evolution of heat transfer between the two materials in our experiment is due to those properties which are DIFFERENT between the two objects, rather than properties which we would suppose are unrelated to the specific property (or ‘object’) under consideration. Anyhow, the above argumentation probably seems fuzzy. But, to be fair, paragraph 3 doesn’t actually provide examples or more thorough explanation of the problems associated with Scientific objectivity (I think that it criticises something called “rational framing” – the way in which individuals create conceptual frameworks within their minds concerning how events are scientifically & causally related to each other – something which will ultimately be similar in all homo sapiens due to their evolutionary nature).

The clothed criticism of Paragraph 3 doesn’t, for instance, provide some type of mathematical formalism which would try to indicate HOW subjective interpretations/methods of framing might enable separate individuals to reach different conclusions about the same scientific “object” being analysed. So I would say that the article provides UNDUE weight to this paragraph by placing it so prominently within the introduction, and by not explaining in sufficient detail the criticisms it offers of Scientific Objectivity. It seems a bit too subjectivist to me - though I liked reading it, as it offered intelligent criticism. Still, the article should make some reference to something that everyone contributing to wikipedia will be aware of - that without the Scientific Method, and the Scientific Objectivity which are the centrality of that method, all of the computers, hard disk drives and technologies which that paragraph could be read as having criticised would not have come into existence. And these are usually held as "good".

ConcernedScientist (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is pretty much wrong in every facet imaginable. It's quite clear this article was written by someone who has little to no understanding of science. In its tirade against science, the author invokes accusations of bias, corruption, and other conspiracy theories. The article says "Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized." No, problems arise from not understanding the limits of using quantitative analysis of experimental observations as a basis for Regress arguments. (Ironically, the quoted sentence is guilty of over-generalization.) The author also uses a quote by Albert Einstein out of context as an Appeal to Authority. The arguments used to attack objectivity reek of Anti-intellectualism, relativism (as mentioned), and perhaps groupthink. Overall, it seems the author is either grossly ignorant, or lacks WP:good faith. - A jaded ex-wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.48.51 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I agree 100% with all the criticisms in the top box. The section on Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity is irrelevant to the subject. It discusses a book on the history of science and Popper's hypothesis-falsification philosophy. Its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political theory rather than to enlighten the reader.

The section The role of the scientific community does not properly place objectivity in the context of the various scientific methods. The section Deliberate misrepresentation is on the entirely different subject of fraud. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political agenda.

The section Objectivity in experimental set-up and interpretation appears to introduce a theory of psychology in objectivity - but offers no supporting evidence and does not say why it is relevant to the main subject. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political viewpoint of science.

The section Objectivity in measurement is a statement of the obvious. While I appreciate that this does not necessarily make the section redundant, it could be far simpler and clearer.

But the worst part is the beginning. The article dives straight into a confusing discussion on measurement which contains most of the original research and unverified claims referred to in the top box.

I suggest that this article needs to be re-written, beginning with a simple definition of objectivity.

I further suggest that we should support the merging of this article with Objectivity-Philosophy. That way this article could be re-written in a short paragraph or two. --Stephenrwheeler (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the article is not very good, but what improvements do you exactly have in mind?

As to the proposed merger of Objectivity (science) into Objectivity (philosophy), you should consider that philosophy and science do conceive sufficiently different of the notion "Objectivity" to justify different articles.

Kuhn's book is not just a historical 'story' of science, but a perspective from the Philosophy of science on what some might call the 'historical logic' of science, which is a rather relevant topic if you think about (philosophical) theories of the progress of thought or knowledge. Popper's book is a reaction to the concept of verification as in logical positivism, and constitutes a rather important idea on how science operates.

Measurement in general, more concrete e.g. the representational theories of measurement, plays a rather strong role not just in the applied sciences, but in theory of science and particular scientific theories. Even for most scientists there is not much 'obvious' about it.

So-called biases that have been investigated in psychology do actually play an important role in science practice, as they do in methodology etc. etc.

You have given no hint as to which political agenda you do see followed (and in which way) in this article. However, some of the inclusions you reduce to alleged agendas are of central importance to the concept of objectivity in science.

I don't quite understand whether you have in mind a reduction of 'scientific objectivity' to 'philosophical' (whatever they are) ideas. I think that if you want to remove content, you should actually state the reason why to do so (indeed, e.g. the section on fraud might not be substantial for the concept, but it might encyclopaedically be important for the lemma e.g. as a differentiating factor ("not everyone can just claim and pretend")). If you would like to try and expand or clarify on the ideas in the article, I'd say you're welcome.

Morton Shumway—talk 12:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC).

Lead section edit suggestions

This section is in critical need of clarification, simplification, organization, and citations, as is the entire article. For starters, I have added two sentences at the very beginning of the lead section. I hope this will start to give an easy-to-read sense of the overall meaning of objectivity in science.

I unfortunately don't have the necessary time (or the experience with the social environment of editing Wikipedia articles) to substantively edit the lead section at this time. However, as part of an educational project I am involved with, I will be contributing other substantive edits, the discussion of which will follow. --Christina1001 (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization of references

I've changed the section "Literature" to "Further reading" and added sections entitled "Footnotes" and "References," in order to represent and distinguish between the various sources that are currently being used and might be used in the future. (See Wikipedia's various style guides.) The "Footnotes" section can be used for brief, direct inline citations (like source and page #) and other notes, and the "References" section is intended as a place to add full references used to build the article. I've also rearranged the sources that were lumped together under the former "Literature" section, splitting them between the "Further reading" and "References" sections. The way I've structured things, those sources listed under "Further reading" are not, as yet, referred to anywhere in the article as far as I can tell, and those listed under "References" are referred to in the article.

The reason for all this is that I plan to add a section to the article under "Critiques of scientific objectivity" (which I have also renamed from the former "Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity") in which I would like to add inline citations which will appear in the "Footnotes" and "References" section.

Further, the formatting style of the listed sources was inconsistent, so I have tried to make them a little more consistent by putting them in APA format. --Christina1001 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Donna Haraway's "situated knowledges"

I've begun a new sub-section under the "Critiques of scientific objectivity" section in order to address Donna Haraway's important and well-known critique of objectivity, which is also a re-thinking of the concept of objectivity that proposes a new way to think about doing science and understanding the natural world. If I have time, I will return and expand upon this.--Christina1001 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

History

This article also needs a history section, which I would like to come back and write when I have time, if someone else doesn't write one in the mean time. I will base it on Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's important book Objectivity, which is a historical account of how objectivity came to be such a highly-valued ethos in science.--Christina1001 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a short history section. --Christina1001 (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization suggestions

Perhaps a better way of organizing some of the information on objectivity in science could be to amalgamate some of the sections here into a single one on how objectivity is put into practice in science (in addition to making it more readable, adding citations, and perhaps eliminating or discussing the elimination of some of the irrelevant stuff). I will come back and do this at some point when I have time, if someone else doesn't. There is perhaps also a need to distinguish more clearly -- maybe in the lead section -- how objectivity in science is different than other kinds of objectivity. --Christina1001 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Objective Observer?

Ancient philosophy saw man as the measure of all things. We see it as somewhat subjective today and a little at odds with the modern perspective. In ancient astronomy and optics the viewer's perspective takes precidence. In astronomy the Earth is taken to be the center of the solar system. And in Euclid's optics one draws rays from the eye to the object of vision. Here one also finds that an ideal is projected onto the object. But there appears to be a form of objectivity acting there too in the sense that one proceeds from knowns to unknowns or expresses unknowns in terms of what is more accurately known. One builds up from one's foundation or philosophical ground and one makes projections based on what is held to be true.

The same approach is used in modern science. Our measurements are based on standard units. In surveying one starts from a fundamental station and a principal meridian representing an initial point and direction. Measurements are based on the standard unit of length. New positions are determined to establish a grid system. Objectivity expresses itself in measurements relative to the grid although throughout every step of the process relatively subjective measurements are made from individual positions and adjusted for inconsistencies among the grid measurements.

The basic approach seems to have been to base one's knowledge on the best data that one has available. But Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem to have moved away from this position and have adopted a more subjective view of the world. --Jbergquist (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity and open-mindedness

Somewhere else on wikipedia the connection between scientific objectivity and open-mindedness in accepting scientific evidence has been mentioned. I think it would be a useful addition to this article.--89.120.156.224 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing: History before Bacon

The History section claims that the concept of scientific objectivity began with Francis Bacon. I very much doubt that, and strongly suspect that the concept was used in the natural sciences long before that person was born, perhaps as far back as antiquity. Thus it would be nice for someone with the knowledge of older works to add properly sourced information about the period before Bacon.Jbohmdk (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)