swansont

! Moderator Note Not even close to the amount of detail needed. Plus, posting videos without supporting material violates rule 2.7

Just the fact that planes can shoot bullets without much problem should tell you that this isn’t an issue.

How is that subjective? I mean, if I rub diamond and quartz together does the scratch appear on one if I look at it, but on the other if someone else does?

How is this subjective? One surface of a diamond being slightly harder than another is still an objective observation.

You’ve never addressed studiot’s point about Moh’s scale of hardness. In what way is that subjective?

It’s just a matter of figuring out how to make measurements. What can be objectively quantified. That does not follow. At best you can say some elements of science are not “pure” A lack of objectivity in one area does not invalidate areas where the objectivity exists. You need to find the way to make objective measurements, whether it’s direct or indirect.

Please show a calculation showing when this becomes a problem.

Two major difference since 2016 are the Dobbs decision (and Trump’s role and endorsement of it), and Trump being legally found to be a rapist.

One of the arguments that seems to glossed over is, if they bothered, how would they get there? We know that humans in their existence migrated several tens of thousands of kilometers in several tens of thousands of years. That is, around 1 km a year. But there is danger in using that as a simple extrapolation, because you can’t migrate 1 km a year over an ocean. It’s why I find the argument that going thousands of light years in a certain amount of time is almost trivial to be unpersuasive; it lacks the necessary details of how you’d do that. It’s just a hand-wave of “they’d figure it out” (it’s like that great Sidney Harris cartoon - “I think you should be more explicit here in step 2”) You need evidence of them before you can use them to buttress an argument.

Depends on what constitutes direct. Does that mean naked-eye observation? Nobody has ever seen an electron. Or atoms or molecules. Even if not, most measurements of quantum physics are indirect. You can measure the wavelength of light with a diffraction grating, but the direct measurement is the deflection of the light. Similar for atom spacing in crystallography using x-rays or electrons.

As MigL implies, the clarification needed is “bulletproof against what?” and then one needs to know how thick of a material you’d need. You could calculate the mass of the plane from its size, and see if you could generate enough lift. But toucana’s post strongly suggests “no” for anything but small-arms fire

But that’s not the topic under discussion here, remember? The qualia depends on the individual, making it subjective, but you could measure reactions from a large number of people and quantify the reaction; e.g. a color known to suppress aggressiveness, and this has been measured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Miller_pink Qualia, not quality “the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.”

You can’t “erase” a radio broadcast; there’s nothing that can catch up to the signal once it’s sent. But really, it’s not necessary, since the 1/r^2 attenuation will effectively do it for you. That signal that’s 1 watt a kilometer away from the tower drops to 10^-13 watts a light year away (and that ignores the issue of your radio tower probably being a dipole emitter, meant to maximize horizontal signals, and being smaller as it becomes vertical)

I didn’t say anything about physicalism, but if you contend that something “beyond” it is not beyond science, how do you measure such things? If they can’t be measured, you are requiring a change to science, which means you are being dismissive of it. What evidence? You still haven’t presented any. Views are not evidence. They are conclusions or opinions. That doesn’t make them correct. The evidence is e.g. that JA and ethylene signals respond to the attacks by pathogenic fungi. That’s something that is measured. It seems to me that this is an objective observation, and this discussion is supposed to be about objectivity. Plants having intelligence is an hypothesis, is labeled as such in the paper, and you admit that an hypothesis is distinct from the evidence supporting it. That there are ~70 definitions of intelligence suggests that this is not an objective issue. It sounds more like equivocation - using a word with more than one definition and using it interchangeably in situations where different definitions would apply

Then what’s the point of bringing it up? “Science strives to be objective” isn’t exactly a controversial position. “Does true objectivity exist in science?” is a leading question that (along with your arguments) suggests that any lack of objectivity is a flaw in science. i.e. that it’s not truly objective, and that you’re free to dismiss it unless it is. Yes, as science aims to be objective. But you extended that when you speak of Where did you hear that falling short of being objective is a flaw of science, as opposed to the people practicing science? Perhaps you should consider if, it’s beyond the objective realm, maybe it’s not science. Also not influenced by feelings or opinions. Do you understand what constitutes scientific evidence? (opinion is not evidence) How is this not the ad populum fallacy? (that if several people believe something, it must be true, aka the bandwagon fallacy) Scientific evidence is empirical rather than anecdotal. Details depend on branch of science, but it’s usually something that can be quantified and subject to statistical analysis, from experiment or controlled observation. I’d have to know what you thought was evidence before I could say what disqualifies it.

By raising this issue, you are indeed requesting it. ”science” is a very vague reference. Where, specifically, does this impression come from? Seriously? If the world were purely objective, cro-magnon man would have understood quantum mechanics? What is your definition of objective? You aren’t being careful enough. At the very least you are repeating the error of extrapolating a tiny sliver of science to science as a whole, and you fail to present any evidence. Your vague dissatisfaction isn’t evidence. You can take this script and say you think there are ghosts, or that bigfoot exists, or aliens walk among us. If you have no evidence, don’t bring it up. It’s required.

To require complete objectivity is to demand an ideal system. What is the connection to objectivity?

Two problems here. 1. iNow posted after your statement, so you cannot have had that post in mind when you made your claim. 2. It’s clear from the context that iNow interpreted it to mean “are there examples of science being objective” and gave some. i.e. objectivity exists. But the tone of your posts is that objectivity isn’t universal, i.e. there are examples where objectivity is lacking. There’s no conflict between these positions.

This was what I said, but you said you disagreed with it. You added a post specifically to say so.

So perfect objectivity is not an ideal system? What improvement beyond perfection is required in order for it to be ideal? I thought we covered this in a previous thread. We can deal with subjectivity in certain cases, as had been discussed So far as science is concerned, no. When you have evidence that science fails* owing to these assumptions it could be revisited. But you persist in not presenting evidence that would cause us to question it. * not having an answer yet is not a failure of science. There is no credible claim that science has answered everything. That’s no evidence at all. If you contend that “the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity” you’d better be able to present examples of this, and also make the case that they are representative of the problem and not isolated exceptions.

Which part? That you’re demanding an ideal system (which is what perfect implies) or that it’s not what happens in the real world?

If you shoot a million shots and get one bullseye, that’s not “accurate”

Michael McMahon has been banned for repeated spamming of science-free takes on various topics.