Talk:Objectivity (science)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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 The AfD notice seems out of date and missing from the system.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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)