Science is not objective.

(1) Disputed definition of objectivity (2) Key support for resolution (3) Reinforcements (4) Conclusion (5) Sources I appreciate CON's candor in round 1. I hope we will be able to come to some agreement and I will continue my attempts to clarify my position and more fully understand my opponent's complicated views on the matter at hand. (1) Disputed definition of objectivity (1a) Paraphrasing CON's (1a) and rebuttals CON states clearly in the previous round that the position they are defending, "...sees knowledge as a relationship between the subject and the object." As I stated in round 1, this would seem to be obviously a subjective position. CON goes on in their attempt to justify their unique definition of objectivity by saying, "When knowledge is formed according to these rules, it is objective, not merely a subjective product of the subject's mental states." This statement, with its unidentified "rules" would seem to be beyond the scope of CON's proposed definition of objectivity (o.2) It is unclear if CON is proposing that there is one set of unidentified "rules" that govern this vague standard of "objectivity" or if these rules are somehow self-evident and specific to each and every possible subject-object interaction. Either way, the definition itself does not seem to be qualitatively distinct from an accurate definition of "subjectivity". (1b) Paraphrasing CON's (1b) and rebuttals It was my intention to allow CON to pick either the first part of (o.1) or the second part of (o.1) or even to pursue them both if so desired. I am perfectly happy to focus on the second part of the definition as CON suggests, however I am also fully prepared to explain why scientists are biased. I didn't present any argument for the inherent bias of scientists in the first round because I believed it was clear that a human being's perception is purely subjective by definition and scientists are presumably human beings. However there is some (very serious) evidence of wide spread bias in published scientific research.[1] It is unclear to me if CON has agreed to the definition of objectivity as the second part of (o.1) or if they are merely attempting to narrow the scope of the definition so they can refute it somehow in the final round. For the record, I do not believe that CON's proposed definition is acceptable for the purposes of this discussion. (2) Key support for resolution (2a) Paraphrasing CON's (2) and rebuttals CON seems to have a fair grasp of my position when stating, "My 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." But when they say, "The problem with this argument is that my opponent is criticizing science from outside of reality." This would seem to be an impossible statement, unless I am uniquely "objective" or otherwise "outside of reality" like some sort of philosophical ghost. Unless perhaps, CON is maybe suggesting that I am fabricating a criticism out of thin air like some sort of rigorously logical fairy tale. The accusation that I have fabricated some sort of devious straw-man definition of objectivity is patently ludicrous, seeing as how I have simply referred to the most perfectly common and mundane definition that is available. Certainly the scientific method has yielded something that might be described as CON states eloquently, "...the largest, most detailed, and most useful body of knowledge the human race has ever seen." But that in no way implies that it meets the standard of "objectivity". In-fact there is no broad consensus that science meets any uniform standard for "objectivity", some scientist think "objectivity" is one thing and other scientists think it is something else.[2] The very definition of "objectivity" seems to be perfectly subjective. CON tries to say that Kepler's methods are somehow in some vague and undefined way "different" from that of astrologers and mystics, but does absolutely nothing to marry this vague comparison to some sort of definitive and unequivocal standard. While some methods of collecting knowledge may be "more intersubjective" and others may be "less intersubjective" or perhaps "more reliable" or "less reliable" which is all well and good, the idea that we need the term "objective" at all is an example of the fallacy, "affirming the consequent"[3]. In-fact even CON's own proposed definition (s.1) does nothing to require science to have the attribute of "objectivity". The one is not required or prerequisite to the other and instead they would seem to be incompatible, based on the common definitions of both terms. (3) Reinforcements Since CON seemed to miss this point completely the first time, "According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[4] Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions". "Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence. The key terms here are "intersubjective" and "basic statements". According to Popper, all scientific observations are based on intersubjective basic statements. There is no imaginary "objectivity" is required at all. (4) Conclusion CON seems to be basing their entire case on a perfectly unique and fabricated definition of the concept of "objectivity" (o.2) which strangely seems to be indistinguishable from the concept of "subjectivity". I cannot agree to this definition. I am not able to determine any sound logical support for this highly personal definition, CON's repeated attempts to "affirm the consequent" not withstanding. This has been a very enjoyable debate and I look forward to the final round. (5) Sources [1] http://journals.plos.org... [2] https://plato.stanford.edu... [3] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...