Science is not objective.

I think he has done a commendable job of organizing the issues, so I will address the issues in the same order. However, my point 1 in this post will be the same as point 3 in his post, since, as he notes, we do not disagree about his points 1 or 2.1. The Disputed Definition of ObjectivityI will first discuss my definition, then my opponent's definition. I will argue that his criticisms of my definition fail once the definition is properly defended and that his own definition should be modified.1a. My Definition of ObjectivityI wrote, "something is objective if it constitutes a grasp of an object in a form appropriate to the subject. " Since this is an unconventional definition of objectivity, I need to clarify. Traditionally, accounts of knowledge have been either intrinsicist or subjectivist. The intrinsicists, like Plato, think of knowledge as something that exists in itself, apart from the knowing subject. The subjectivists, like Hume, think of knowledge as a matter of the subject's mental states alone, with no necessary relationship to the object. The objective approach to knowledge, which I am defending, sees knowledge as a relationship between the subject and the object. My opponent, being used to the clash between intrinsicism and subjectivism, mistakenly classifies my position as subjectivist. But I am taking a position substantially different from the position of someone like Hume. On my view, the nature of the knowing subject and the nature of the object, together, create rules for cognition that the knowing subject must follow. When knowledge is formed according to these rules, it is objective, not merely a subjective product of the subject's mental states. I think it should now be clear why I do not see relativity as a problem for objectivity and why I do not see my definition of objectivity as equivalent to the definition of subjectivity.1b. My Opponent's Definition of ObjectivityMy opponent's definition of objectivity is as follows. Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. [3]Now, this definition is not actually provided by my opponent's source, although he suggests it is. What my opponent has done is to combine two distinct definitions, that is, two distinct senses of the term being defined, and present their disjunction as a single definition. I would suggest that my opponent modify his definition to include only the second disjunct, since it captures his meaning better than the first disjunct. The first disjunct is the practical, concrete meaning of objectivity that laymen use, translating essentially to "unbiased. " This is pretty important for science, but my opponent doesn't appear to be arguing that science isn't objective in this sense, since he hasn't presented any evidence that scientists are biased. The second disjunct is the intrinsicist definition of objectivity, which does appear to be the basis of my opponent's criticism of science. Moreover, the second disjunct encapsulates the first disjunct, since any conclusion, biased or not, is drawn by some observer. So I think what my opponent really means to do is define objectivity using the second disjunct, not the first. So, I think my opponent's proposed definition equivocates between two substantially different definitions of objectivity, and tends to confuse the debate more than clarify it. He should define objectivity using the second disjunct, and leave out the first disjunct, which is about bias. The intrinsicist definition of objectivity is what the debate should be about.2. My Opponent's Key Support for the ResolutionMy opponent's argument in support of the resolution is a deductive argument from the definition of science and the definition of objectivity. Essentially, he points out that science requires a human observer. Since objectivity requires the absence of any human observer, per his definition, scientific objectivity is impossible. The problem with this argument is that my opponent is criticizing science from outside of reality. We should form the concept of objectivity (or decide not to) by starting with the facts and asking whether, within the facts, we can mark out a distinction between conclusions that are objective and conclusions that are not objective. What my opponent has done, instead, is effectively to fabricate a strawman definition of objectivity that has no basis in fact or practical utility and criticize science for not measuring up to it. Now, starting with the facts, can we find a distinction in reality that is worth calling objectivity? Yes. Science starts with careful measurements, and gradually builds up a series of inductive generalizations from those measurements. Over time, these inductive generalizations are integrated into broader generalizations encompassing more of the facts, eventually culminating in the largest, most detailed, and most useful body of knowledge the human race has ever seen. For example, starting with countless detailed measurements of the positions of the planets over time, Kepler induced Kepler's laws, generalizations which correctly predict the movement of the planets over time. Later, Newton integrated Kepler's laws into his laws of motion, which encompass not only the motion of the planets but terrestrial observations like the paths of projectiles - and which eventually enabled us to land a rocket ship on the Moon. I maintain that this procedure is fundamentally and obviously different from a subjective means of acquiring "knowledge," like that practiced by astrologers or mystics. This distinction, not some imaginary standard requiring a "view from nowhere," is what the concept of objectivity refers to.3. My Opponent's Attempted ReinforcementsMy opponent attempts to reinforce his argument using the philosophies of Karl Popper and Immanuel Kant. I will address each of these in turn.3a. Karl Popper's Philosophy of ScienceMy opponent says that he thinks Popper's philosophy of science is "generally considered authoritative. " It is true that Popper has a wide following among scientists, but from what I understand falsificationism is no longer a widely held position among philosophers of science. At any rate, "authorities" carry little weight in philosophy. What matters are the arguments. I'm not sure what argument from Popper my opponent intends to be presenting in his previous post, so maybe he can clarify in his next response.3b. Immanuel Kant's MetaphysicsAppealing to Kant is strange here, since Kant's goal in the Critique of Pure Reason was to defend the objective validity of science, albeit in a qualified sense of "objectivity. " This was the purpose of the Transcendental Deduction. I don't think the Transcendental Deduction is a cogent argument, but my point is that Kant would not agree that science is not objective. My opponent appears to argue against the resolution using Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena, but I don't accept that distinction and he has provided no arguments for it. Kant did provide arguments for it, but my opponent has not used any of them.4. ConclusionI think my opponent has made an interesting case, but it is fundamentally based on a strawman definition of objectivity, and he has left several points in his reasoning undefended. I hope he will attempt to address these issues in the next round.