Yes, I do believe that science is objective. Science is based on tons and tons of research and takes into consideration many independent factors. Science is based on facts, and facts cannot be disputed. People can conduct experiments in the same way and fashion and should get the results as others before them have received.
Science is based on the scientific method. A question or problem is raised with some possible answers or solutions. The answers and solutions are tested, if an answer doesn't work or is false, it's thrown out. Testing continues until an answer is found. There is no personal opinion or subjective judgment in the scientific method. It is only fact, so science is based only on fact.
Cience is based in facts and theories that are testable, which is why I believe that science is objective. There are some in the science community who may espouse crazy theories that cannot be tested, but I feel that the majority of scientists are looking for answers in objective ways.
For it is based on facts and supported by the rules and laws applied to it. Facts also came from universally accepted information. It Science ignores biases, instead they go through different processes and methods and experiments to support their ideas. So therefore i can now conclude that science is objective
I think science can be both but is mostly objective. Science has different parts to it, From astronomy to physiology. Most of science is based on facts and expierements. So that is where we get the objective part of it. But astronomy is the study of space, Which no one can really know everything about so it can be subjective at some parts.
I oof because i oof and science is based on the one and the only oof. All hail the oof. I believe sceince is only the oof. Therefore the oof is the explanation of science. Everyone is wrong except for the oof. Therefore, Science is objective because of the legendary oof.
Science is objective because it is based on previously discovered/recently discovered facts. These facts, although made/discovered by humans, cannot change as they are grounded in experimental evidence. Although most experimental discoveries start with a hypothesis, scientists are impartial to their hypotheses. If their hypothesis is wrong it would just be modified to represent the results of the experiment. If they were being completely objective, they would falsify their results to portray what their hypothesis was concluding. If science were truly subjective, then these "theories" that the people in the other column are reffering to as subjective would not be worldly accepted and grounded in facts.
Yes science is objective Science is based in facts and theories that are testable, which is why I believe that science is objective. There are some in the science community who may espouse crazy theories that cannot be tested, but I feel that the majority of scientists are looking for answers in objective ways.
Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories
are derived in some rigorous way from facts of experience
acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based on
what we can see and hear and touch, etc. Personal opinion or
preferences and speculative imaginings have no place in
science. Science is objective. Scientific knowledge is reliable
knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge
In reality, Nothing is truly objective. There will always be different ideas and opinions that will conflict with any subject. Take the debate of the beginning of the universe for example, If you are a follower of the church, And have faith in your religion, You would have believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that there was no need to find out how the universe truly started. However, If you believed the scientists at that time, You would support the idea that the Sun is actually the center of the universe and that there had to have been some start to it, And something there before that. This is a prime example of how subjective science can be. Opinions will always get mixed in with facts and bias will always be prevelent in science because of human nature.
Science deals with the facts that are stated by previous people based on their experiments and the results they got, that all good and fancy but when the human being is questioning existence, it becomes a huge problem for science since the answer to such questions are near impossible for science. Whatever is beyond the physical reality we find science struggling with. Therefore it's very hard, nearly impossible to state science as objective since it lacks the answer to the most important question a human being can ask, purpose.
As humans we have an endeavor to get closer to the truth. We make decisions based on past experiences. We seek to know more about the universe. However, there are too many variables in conducting experiments, so we try to limit our organization of requirements in conducting experiments. We decide how we conduct the experiments with our emotions. Therefore it cannot be objective because objectivity is removing all emotions and biases.
Science is intended to be objective. The truth is that it ends up being more subjective. The reason for this is that during experiments scientists generally have a desired outcome. This desired outcome often trumps the ability to be objective. Certain studies have been proven over time to be incorrect due to this.
All the science's agents, such as scientist , research and education institutions follow political or economical interests .As far as I know, all the scientists are humans, therefore they are exposed to social influences.Or you're gonna tell me that the A-bomb creators were doing it for passion or free of any subjective ideology.
I choose to think that my view of reality is observer-dependent. Based on that assumption, how can "science" (you mean 'natural science,' I suppose), which is based on concepts or cognitive models that are all invented by fallible humans, be fully, 100% or absolutely objective? The last time I checked, humans are NOT omniscient.
You can say that science is more of a pursuit to objectivity. Objectivity is an unattainable goal, but it is a goal worth pursuing nonetheless, because of the many new discoveries it makes along the way. To be completely objective you have to be free from all assumptions and this is exactly what science strives to be.
Everything that happens has some sort of bias or personal belief that influences the way they do things. When it comes to experiments it is very difficult to go through them and eliminate all of the bias. In turn this could skew the results and ultimately influence the outcome and research presented to the world. The influence of bias is what makes science subjective.
First off, Scientific theories are not facts, And cannot be proven. Unlike a math equation, For example, Which is able to be proven, A theory will never be able to be proved, But it can be backed up by observations, Trends, And conducted experiments which could lead someone to believe the idea, Which brings me to my next point. All current theories are based on already existing theories but with newly discovered knowledge. So whether or not a person is trying to either prove or disprove a theory, They will have a biased opinion going into their research and experiments. Also, Science is such a complex subject that most scientists often refer to other's opinions, Which again, Cannot be proven. One more idea that shows that science is occasionally subjective is that sometimes, Theories could make or break a scientist's career if put out into the public, Which I'm sure is considered by a scientist while in the process of searching for information to create a new theory that could possibly put his/her career at risk. So basically, I think that anything that cannot fully be proven includes some sort of human emotion or opinions from other's, Which often leads to a bias conclusion.
Everyone has a "pillar of identity" behind every action that they take. They carry their background, Beliefs, And character wherever they go. There is no changing the essence, Or removing that, From who each person is. In the scientific field, That is carried through the proccesses of the scientific method and not only defines the PERSON, But subconciously, It defines their work as well. Take creationism debates for example. Christians vs. Atheists in the debate of how God has, Or has not, Created the universe. The scientists have done their research, Made their opinions, And scholarly argue about their scientific research based on what their IDENTITY is. Christianity, For example, Or atheism. In creationism debates, Subjective identity is easier to point out than in other situations, But it's who we are. Humanity is subjective and opinionated by nature. If we try to remove subjectivity, There's always a little bit left. Because subjectivity altogether extricated is the extrication of humanity. Then we would all, In essence, Be like robots. No defining thought, Emotion, Or passion behind anything. Just fact.
The definition of science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. " Science is intended to be objective, As it attempts to provide factual explanations for everything in the world. Although bias commonly impacts the objectivity of science, The scientific method attempts to combat subjective ideas by providing a strict route for experimentation.