Luc Turpin

1- Transistor bias has nothing to do with human bias in science. So "knowledge of objectivity" negates subject perception? The subject is still there to perceive what he believes to be objectivity, which, again is not 100% infalible. 2- And what happens if she-he believes she-he is objective when for no fault of her-his own, she-he is not objective or as objective as she-he believes to be? 3- Please define "subject"??? 4- I agree that for many processes, designs, calculations, constructions the exact values is unknown, but the probability of being wrong is a known acceptably low level" 5- I took for granted that data, facts were correct, relevant and complete. Data - facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true 6- no

1-Let's then agree then to the use of the first definition 2- I am not getting this; how is "allowing for some form of constructive subjectivity in the beginning of the scientific provides opportunities for seing things differently" with provided defintions; Objective - objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it; Subjective - which is the claim that perception emerges form the subject's point of view; 3- Pointless to use, so let's not use it; agree with the rest of your statement. 1- Please elaborate on transitors not working without bias 2- I provided a definition of objectivity for the thread; means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. Here is another one from wiki: In science, objectivity refers to attempts to do higher quality research by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs, while focusing mainly on proven facts and evidence. Please provide yours as I was unable to find it in the thread. 3- Please elaborate on Limit State Theory. 4- Data and facts turn the subjective into the objective. 5- Now I am asking for elaboration.

I would also add that I don't always understand your writing, which makes it harder for me to see your point.

1- I am all ears to learn about "bias" 2- You keep telling me that the subjective is acknowledged and accepted by Science, but when I bring the topic up, I can sense the unease and tension about the subject matter. I am not sure that all scientists would agree with your statement. There is also the matter of what kind of subjectivity is at play. If I say bias in worldview, then I get a much stonger response than say parallax 3- I would modify your phrase to "subjectivity contained and controlled through data and facts". 4- Letting subjectivity rule without containment and control would be a disaster of titanic proportion.

1- So, do you agree that there is and should be some amount of required subjectivity at the onset of the scientific process and this has to be "objectivised" through data at the outset of the process? 2- I will be revisiting the text and I agree that it should not exclude 'a good match with data is what makes a good explanation. This is an unconditional statement 3- This is not a definition, but a statement on my part. Allowing for some form of constructive subjectivity in the beginning of the scientific provides opportunities for seing things differently. I did not ignore the parallax example, but made reference to it by stating that different result interpretations were less an issue of optics, but more of bias.

My response to Studiot's post was not fully posted; for which I corrected in a following post. I am on the outside looking inside, which is a different view from those on the inside no longer looking outside.

I was able to recover the missing text. 1- Is the article that bad or just presenting another perspective of things that runs counter to one's worldview? They criticise, but do not abandon science. 2- Assimilated the difference between accuracy and precision; thanks! 3- My contention as those from referenced authors is that subjectivity has a constructive role to play in the scientific process and should not always be frowned upon. For example subjectivity in efference with conclusion resistant to variation in subjective input. 4- There are ways of correcting tilting heads, but what about when the difference in lecture comes from the inside of the head as in bias towards a certain outcome? 1- Swansont; Will Robinson is not in danger if subjectivity comes into play in the early stages of the scientific process, when hypothesis is formed. And agree that the map is not the territory and correlation does not imply causation. 2- I did not do anything special for that post, but you can see it being rolled under the quote box. 3- I agree that there are risks involved in putting into play subjectivity in the scientific process. Again, at the start of the process and then confirmed or denied by data.

1- I guess that we have unanimity that the paper is of poor quality. It was not for the content though that I posted it, but because it was expressing a view of including subjectivity in the scientific process. 2- It says that science 'needs to lose its fear of subjectivity in efference" and says that “Science is superior to superstition not because it does not allow for subjective elements, but because its conclusions are rather resistant to variation in subjective input, and because it allows for rational criticism of the assumptions it makes.” I am all for this 1- The fact that individuals formulate hypotheses does make it subjective. Definition: a- Subjectity which is the claim that perception emerges form the subject's point of view. b- Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind 2- Subjectivity in the scientific process does not exclude "a good match with data is what makes a good explanation. 3- There is a good side to subjectivity in science; it allows for different ideas to come into play. For an unknown reason, most of my response was not posted. I will try and recover it.

I think that I chose poorly with the posted reference as I just wanted to pursue the line that subjectivity is already in the science process and/or a requirement for good science. The article that I posted made the debate diverge towards consciousness and its interplay with living organisms. In fact, the authors do promote that not only humans are conscious, but all biological entities, which is an idea that I have been pursuing, quite unssucessfully in a few threads, Not sure though that it would be the kiss of death for science if a certain amout of subjectivy was in the scientific process.. "While the evidence-based approach of science is lauded for introducing objectivity to processes of investigation, the role of subjectivity in science is less often highlighted in scientific literature. Nevertheless, the scientific method comprises at least two components: forming hypotheses, and collecting data to substantiate or refute each hypothesis (Descartes’ 1637 discourse [Olscamp, 1965]). A hypothesis is a conjecture of a new theory that derives from, but by definition is unproven by, known laws, rules, or existing observations. Hypotheses are always made by one individual or by a limited group of scientists, and are therefore subjective—based on the prior experience and processes of reason employed by those individuals, rather than solely on objective external process. Such subjectivity and concomitant uncertainty lead to competing theories that are subsequently pared down as some are proved to be incompatible with new observations." https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/40/1/95/130748/The-science-of-subjectivity or this one: "Subjective choice and objective knowledge are no opposites in science: rather, subjective elements are inevitable in scientific inference and need to be explicitly addressed to improve transparency and achieve more reliable outcomes, says a team of EU-funded researchers." "Explanatory inference is the process of choosing the hypothesis that best explains the data at hand. This concept has been notoriously vague, notes Sprenger: “What is a ‘good’ explanation? The gut feeling of a scientist? In our work, we have provided a rigorous foundation of this mode of inference via the construction and comparison of various measures of explanatory power.” The team identified a close relationship between prior beliefs and explanatory power. The quality of an explanation, and the inference of the ‘best explanation’, is hence not a purely objective matter, but entangled with subjective beliefs." https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430474-reconciling-subjectivity-and-objectivity-in-science

Will need it as so far I feel nothing

1- to feel that I have some sense of purpose 2-din’t get that one 😊

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity? I sensed while reading this, maybe wrongfully, that science wanted to "rinse away" subjectivity from the process. However, some believe that subjectivity has a key role to play in science In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/552 Another thing that caught my attention was that science does not evaluate objects, but evaluates properties of objects. This will become vital in furthering my understanding of science.

I need to correct and even contradict my statement; as there is not perfect objectivity, all steps in the process of doing science are vulnerable, to a certain degree, to subjectivity seeping into the process, including individual experiments.

Understrood

1- I was trying to demonstrate imperfect objectivity through imperfect sampling, but, admittedly, not going very far with the argumentation. Never was my intention to disbar Mohs from objectivity; but disbar it from perfect objectivity, maybe. 2 - Because of 4- below, I hesitate to say that the subject is still in the picture, even for the greater than two and less than three argumentation. But, if you ask me if a measurement between two and three inches is objective enough to make science work, then my response is a resounding yes. Also, does your two examples demonstrate some sort of a link between more objectivity with less precision and less objectivity with more precision? This seem to be contra-indicative. 3- I understand better you position. 4- I would appreciate knowing more about the theory of errors as a way of differentiating between science and philosophy. I admit that may very well be missing many parts of the puzzle in my comprehension of objectivity is science. Note: I will not be very available on the weekend for responses to posts. Thanks.

Told you I aint that smart!

Yep!

I admit that this is a very good case for perfect objectivity. Nonetheless, objectivity is still reliant upon subject perception to make the determination that it is objective, which is the main point of the definition. You need a subject to perceive the scratch on the quartz and subject perception is not 100% infallible, although very-very unlikely in your example. How can you lack precision and still be objective? I am not quite sure I understand how this could come about. The mohs scale has quantative values and agree that my example does not make it subjective 1- I am just trying to discuss here, not pass for a genius, which I am not. I have shown that I am not on numerous occasions in my posts. 2- Just saying that imperfections abound also in the minerals stated in the mohs scale 3- I am so smart that I don't even understand your point of continuous rather than not in the mohs scale. 4- Read my Swansont reply above; if you can seperate the object from the subject, then you can claim absolute objectivity. But, the example given by Swansont, which is very-very close to absolute objectivity, does not remove the object from the subject. "Someone" has to make the determination about the "something", and this "someone" is not 100% infallible. 5- Quite frankly, no, but does that make a difference. 6- Here to learn!

Who made the determination that it was slightly harder and using what instrument or test or method? Why are there other tests (Rockwell, Brinel, Vickers) if Mohs has achieved perfect objectivity? "The problem is that the Mohs hardness scale is purely comparative and not objectively set out. Steel pins also don’t take into account the huge variations in steel due to the grade and chemical composition, meaning that it’s of no use for objectively quantifying how hard any one particular steel is." https://www.westyorkssteel.com/blog/testing-steel-how-hard-can-it-be/ The variability of hardness discussed in this quote on steel also applies to all of the minerals used in the Mohs scale Maybe objectivity in scale, but subjectivity in application of scale to realities of the world.

1- That the physical is measured indirectly by its properties and that the result of this measurement is considered objective. 2- the point that I was trying to make is what's stopping science from exploring the physical and non-physical world if indirect measurement can be used in both circumstances. Granted the former would lead to more objectivity while the latter to more subjectivity, I suspect, but the "process" of using measurment as a way of proding reality for answers would be the same. 3- I did ask to "Please expand on "other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable'. Very objective indeed! However, do diamonds differ in hardness? Yes! So, who determined the upper and lower limits of their hardness? When does a diamond stop being a diamond due to impurity? Who chose the common object examples? Could something else have been chosen?

1- Agree 2- According to the definition of objectivity that I have given and support, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, in science and even in the "objectively quantified"; there is always a sliver left of subject perception. 3- Agree that one area with less objectivity does not invalidate areas where there is much more, but again no area of science is impervious to at least a minimum of subject perception. 4- Got that; Still figuring out how to proceed. Interesting link. Went through it quickly, but promised myself that I will read it more attentively a second time. One sentence caught my attention thought "Currently a number of theoretical prediction have been experimentally confirmed, even so they are unexpected and go against accepted views". Ran out of time for today; will post a response tomorrow morning.

Not wanting to equate mind to the physical, but using indirect evidence and measurement as a way of exploring and discovering the true nature of mind. Again, off topic. If indirect measurement is used to uncover the physical and we know that the subjective (e.g qualia, etc.) is amenable to measurement, then what is stopping us from pursuing this line of investigation? We seem to have some sort of agreement that pure objectivity appears to not exist, so pure science then might not exist as well. So, on what grounds do we negate the role of science in pearing into the subjective unknown? Certainly not measurement if we can use indirect measurement. And certainly not because of the subjective nature of "something" as most if not all elements of reality might be composed of varying degrees of both objectivity and subjectivity or even as indicated, sometimes that the classification objective / subjective is not even relevant to certain situations. It was a genuine question. See just above for why I asked the question. Please expand on "other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable'. "Relative" objectivity as in relative to the degree of subject perception e.g.there is less subject perception in taking a measurement then observing the behavior of cephalopods, even if we find ways of categorizing or quantifying behavior. Not moving the goal post, but refining my frame of thought. A matter of degree, not difference in capability.

I will find another venue and identify those findings that I am talking about Very interesting as my contention is that we currently have indirect evidence of mind being all over nature and not necessarily working the way that we thought it would; but, veering off topic again.

And I believe in a messy world; so much so that "truths" may be lying in full view without us even noticing them. Following a well worn path is not conducive to finding unexpected things. 1- Yes, numerous scientific findings that I have posted in other forum threads. 2- A physicalist interpretation is adequate, but insufficient in explaining all of nature. Mind from brain or mind through brain? And is mind all over nature? That is all that I will add here as we are off topic. 1- Agree; off course, but I was challenged to provide evidence which I believe I did! 2- Qualia is individual, subjective and can be indirectly measured - yes. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of nature for which science has no answer and must explore? 3- "Stimulation of the senses by phenomena" can be measured by science. 1- The point that I was trying to make is that ownership is not mine, but fully endorse the definition's interpretation of objectivity. 2- Definition - Objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. There is no perfect objectivity as nothing is totally independent of subject perception. But, relative objectivity (less to more) does exist. Therefore, your thoughts are dependent of you to a high degree as you cannot separate them from subject (you) perception. 3- No contradiction; see 2- 4- According to the definition given, Mohs scales benefit from a high degree of objectivity, but not perfect objectivity as some form of subject perception is required to make the determination of scale. 5- Not anymore! 6- My interpretation is that in a less objective situation, there is more subjectivity and in a more objective situation, there is less subjectivity. 7- True, I am on the defensive as a result of the reception that I have had with past posts of mine. Does something that can only be indirectly measured count as being physical?

The physical property of color is meaurable through wavelenghts, but the qualia of color cannot be measured. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of color?