What Makes Science Subjective?

[Nakosis]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

It becomes subjective when it's interpreted by the individual. If you take 5 people seeing the same event, that same event will be interpreted in 5 different ways given the unique epistemological tools, experiences, and knowledge each individual utilizes.

 

[Orbit]

Solipsism is the idea that reality is purely based on your subjective experience. I would refute it by pointing out that the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.

 

[rational experiences]

Subjective as a human did not exist first without stone existing.

Theism how stone was invented.

Never were you quoting why stone is present as the answer already existed present.

As you exist after stone in your own human first origin a human you are only thinking not creating or inventing.

Problem human ego saying by man self I am first to my origin.

He is not origin to being stone.

How word expression became his abuse sophism as descriptive origin subjective reasoning removed by irradiation event.

 

[Stevicus]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

It could depend on how much information is actually imparted. Whenever I hear the term "subjective," I'm thinking that someone is stating something regarding their own personal point of view. Even if they're stating true, provable facts, they might still be omitting certain details or other facts surrounding a given circumstance. They might have to make decisions about which facts they're going to impart and which facts they (subjectively) deem "irrelevant." Or there may be some things they honestly don't know.

A scientist from the 16th century examining the same rock may not have the same tools or knowledge level as a scientist in modern times. So, as we study further, gain more data, acquire more knowledge - it seems that's the key towards getting greater objectivity.

 

[Quintessence]

What makes it subjective? The fact that humans cannot transcend subjectivity (aka, they have very VERY limited awareness and comprehension). Only that which is omniscient/omnipresent can transcend subjectivity. As such, objectivity is neither the goal or the aim of the sciences; it has always been about attempting to transcend human subjectivity as much as possible while acknowledging that fully accomplishing this is impossible. Aka, the "answers" of science are "to the best of limited human knowledge and capabilities, always subject to revision."

 

[Nakosis]

What makes it subjective? The fact that humans cannot transcend subjectivity (aka, they have very VERY limited awareness and comprehension). Only that which is omniscient/omnipresent can transcend subjectivity. As such, objectivity is neither the goal or the aim of the sciences; it has always been about attempting to transcend human subjectivity as much as possible while acknowledging that fully accomplishing this is impossible. Aka, the "answers" of science are "to the best of limited human knowledge and capabilities, always subject to revision."

Ok, but initially we are not involving a human. So the question, is it objective until a human gets involved?

 

[Nakosis]

It could depend on how much information is actually imparted. Whenever I hear the term "subjective," I'm thinking that someone is stating something regarding their own personal point of view. Even if they're stating true, provable facts, they might still be omitting certain details or other facts surrounding a given circumstance. They might have to make decisions about which facts they're going to impart and which facts they (subjectively) deem "irrelevant." Or there may be some things they honestly don't know.

A scientist from the 16th century examining the same rock may not have the same tools or knowledge level as a scientist in modern times. So, as we study further, gain more data, acquire more knowledge - it seems that's the key towards getting greater objectivity.

If the examination was done by a pure computer AI. Would that be objective?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

Rock, if you choose only the sense of vision or touch to examine it. But if you heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it, shoot it with gamma rays etc .. and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions, then you come to really know what is it, atoms, energy. It may have Uranium in it which can be used to make an atom bomb.

 

[Quintessence]

Ok, but initially we are not involving a human. So the question, is it objective until a human gets involved?

If we're talking some sort of hypothetical non-earth alien species (biological or otherwise) doing science, the same rules would apply - if they are not omniscient/omnipresent, their science wouldn't be objective either. They'd still be limited creatures. It's not about humans, specifically - it's about inherent limitations in the capability of some entity for knowledge and awareness. Objectivity requires omniscience/omnipresence. Anything that lacks that is not truly objective. The only proposed entity that is omniscient/omnipresent is an abstract concept that to some is only hypothetical and to others viewed as a subject of worship due to its unique characteristics and fundamental greater-than-ness relative to ... well... everything.

 

[nPeace]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

It's obviously not as black and white as the Washington Post.
In the first place, the conditions must be objectively true.
For example, are the conditions determined to be true based on assumptions that they are? Or are the conditions observed to be true, regardless of any assumption?
Secondly. can observations be made that are not subject to different interpretations?
Thirdly. Is the evidence circumstantial?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the OP.
Please ignore this post if it is irrelevant to your query.

 

[rational experiences]

Ok, but initially we are not involving a human. So the question, is it objective until a human gets involved?

Meaning consciousness told me. Defining that consciousness exists without a human thinker.
Yet a human owns thinking about a subject. First.

Quantifying self science human thought possession. The first machine encoded AI feedback cause.

Own thought thinking giving answers.

Stone is first stone. It cannot be anything else.
Just as a human first is just a human.

Self mind thinker possessed by his own human science thoughts as a fake God

 

[Stevicus]

If the examination was done by a pure computer AI. Would that be objective?

I would imagine it would depend on how advanced the AI would be. It seems that an objective scientific analysis of a rock would be doable for a human scientist, but perhaps the subjectivity comes into play when deciding what to do with the information. If there's gold in it, that would be good to know.

 

[darkskies]

Solipsism is the idea that reality is purely based on your subjective experience. I would refute it by pointing out that the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.

If the world is a product of the mind, it wouldn't have to.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Solipsism is the idea that reality is purely based on your subjective experience. I would refute it by pointing out that the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.

Nor if you drop a sledgehammer on your toe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

The information is objective. It is a list of facts about the physical properties of the rock that should be equally available to anyone that chooses to review those facts. The information would not change based on who was reviewing or using the information. The conclusions drawn on that information are subjective and weighted based on the logic and facts used to draw those conclusions.

I suppose you can say that evidence is objective, but how that evidence is interpreted is the subjective portion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Solipsism is the idea that reality is purely based on your subjective experience. I would refute it by pointing out that the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.

Sometimes I close my eyes and pretend that it disappears. Then I feel better and open them back up.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

Objectivity vs. subjectivity isn't really a thing when there is no sentient observer who cares to make the difference.
And who is the "you" in this question, if the hypothesis is about objective reality without human observation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

The facts of the rock and results of experiments on the rock do not change except in the accuracy of the measures made upon them. That accuracy could raise subjective eyebrows perhaps.

 

[Earthtank]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

Humans