Science is not objective.

Outline: (1) Introduction and rules (2) Undisputed definitions (3) Disputed definitions (4) Key support for resolution (5) Reinforcements (6) Common counter arguments (7) Round 1 closing statement (8) Sources (1) Introduction and rules Thank you for participating in this debate. I will be arguing in favor of the debate resolution, "Science is not objective." (r.1) Please observe the principle of charity during the course of this debate.[1] (r.2) Please do not attempt to unfairly shift the burden of proof to one side or the other. In round 3 both sides are expected to present their good faith arguments explaining logical support for the positive implications of their position being accepted and logical support for the negative implications of their position not being accepted. (r.3) Please separate your arguments in each round into numbered sections in order to facilitate reason for decision (RFD) for potential voters. (r.4) Please refrain from overt appeals to the voters in the debate rounds. This includes complaints about perceived rule violations. This rule does not apply to the comments tab. Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed. In order to qualify for this challenge, you must have completed at least 22 debates. (2) Undisputed definitions: "science" DDO member Ockham has agreed to the following definition[2]: (s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2] Ockham has also provisionally agreed to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2] (3) Disputed definitions: "objective" I would like to refer to a quote from CON that proposes a unique definition of objectivity, "Something is objective if it constitutes a grasp of an object in a form appropriate to the subject. For example, a physicist's knowledge of physics would be objective by this definition (or so I would argue), since it constitutes a grasp of the traits of the physical world in a form appropriate to the subject, in this case the human capacity to form concepts and propositions."[2] It would seem like "grasp" and "appropriate" are relative to the "subject" under this proposal, making such an observation the very definition of "subjective" which is at odds with the common definition of "objectivity" since they are mutually defined as antonyms according to common definitions.[3][8] It would seem fair to consider the term "objective" to be fully incompatible with (or antithetical to) both the terms "relative" and "subjective". I would like to point out that CON's proposed definition would fit the term "subjective" with absolutely no modification other than removing the word "objective" and replacing it with "subjective". Please read the following with the greatest logical scrutiny you can muster, "Something is [subjective] if it constitutes a grasp of an object in a form appropriate to the subject. For example, a physicist's knowledge of physics would be [subjective] by this definition (or so I would argue), since it constitutes a grasp of the traits of the physical world in a form appropriate to the subject, in this case the human capacity to form concepts and propositions."[2] Do you see what I mean? I can detect absolutely no logical errors in the modified statement. I would advocate for a more common definition of objectivity such as the following, 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] (o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3] (o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3] For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective": (IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8] (sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8] And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8] (4) Key support for resolution Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective." (k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human). (k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b). The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1). (k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception". (5) Reinforcements As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach. "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)."[5] 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. In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumena is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena. "Even if noumena are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6] "...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6] The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively. (6) Common counter arguments I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes, "We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7] "For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7] The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity. One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another. But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy. They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions. (7) Round 1 closing statement Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand. (8) Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] https://www.google.com... [4] https://explorable.com... [5] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] https://plato.stanford.edu... [8] https://www.google.com... [9] http://rationalwiki.org... [10] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [11] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...