Subjectivity is vital to science and scientists.
The oft repeated - ~"Thats not science, its bysis". Objectivity is science. I'm saying that subjectivity is absolutly necessary in science.
- Looking for a quick debate
- No references necessary
- First round is for acceptance
Personal opinions are damaging to science. When a discovery is made that does not favor the discoverers belief that was held prior to the discovery, it will not be claimed. Even if the discovery was in opinion to be beneficial toward critical thinking. Science textbooks for example, don't want kids to know how many times big bang has been revised, it would affect the opinion of who ever reads it. Thus, subjectivity science in favor of preserving old ideas will snowball into more lies, affecting the intentions of future generations who intend on preserving the belief they held, should they want to only preserve the belief that was held from the beginning. Thank you audience, opponent, #con2015
The act of forming a hypotheses is highly subjective. Asking the question starts with opinion and personal judgment’s. Defining the scope, or procedures can be described as subjective as well.
Science begs for subjectivity. When observations run counter to a hypothesis, while the data cannot be “fudged” to fit the hypothesis, the scientist may not reject it, only reworking to resolve why the data is not proving it. Without the subjective nature of this act, all initial hypothesis that fail would be abandoned.
There are questions that are hard or impossible to examine at this moment. Can I prove that additional universes exist? Can I build an experiment to show macroevolution at work? The very act of speculating based on personal opinions is the only way to start – a leap of “faith”.
This why subjectivity is damaging to science. The question "How can i prove this is correct or false" is prejudice. A hypothesis starts with a question or statement, and presumes certain laws are in place that make the question/ statement possible. *Ex* If the scientist writing a hypothesis thinks video games cause violence, the subjective hypothesis could be " If subject A plays video games for X amount of time, they will be more violent than subject B who played for no amount of time.". The scientists belief that video games cause violence will not assume that A or B has outside influences, which can be cause for violent behavior. If it was not subjective, that there was no opinion formed before the question, it would read " Subject A will play video games for X amount of time for two weeks, and then play not at all for two weeks. Subject B will play for four weeks straight. After the first two weeks, we will count violent outburst by subject A and B". The second example does not presume there will be more violence, or less than what is already documented. They will form the control of the experiment, while subjective is already guessing the outcome. It is a very big leap of faith, where science should be blind and not prejudice based on what the scientist wants to believe.
“When a discovery is made that does not favor the discoverers belief that was held prior to the discovery, it will not be claimed.”
This seems a common complaint, and reasonable concern for ethics. An ethical scientist may collect data that does not support his hypothesis and must still allow the data to be presented without modification. That he was wrong about experiment may only push his will to prove the initial hypothesis without damaging science - in fact as I stated - abandoned hypothesis based on failed experiments would leave the world without a great deal of advancement.
“Thus, subjectivity science in favor of preserving old ideas will snowball into more lies, affecting the intentions of future generations who intend on preserving the belief they held, should they want to only preserve the belief that was held from the beginning.”
I think that counterintuitive. Additional personal opinions, call it imagination, may break away from traditionally accepted understanding making way for new science to be explored. If the student only ready and accepts the current big-bang theory, we may miss out on something very specular.