Science is not objective.

In this post, I'm going to make some major clarifications of my concept of objectivity and apply them, while responding to some side points along the way.1. The Disputed Definition of Objectivity1a. My DefinitionOne of the main problems we're having in this debate, as we learn about one another's positions, is miscommunication. Therefore, in the interest of clarity, I will present my view as a deductive argument, starting from the definition of science given in Round 1.1. Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation.2. Sensory observation is objective.3. Logic is objective.4. Therefore, science is objective.The idea behind this argument is that if you start with objectively valid information from the senses and build from there by objectively valid logical steps, the system of knowledge you build up, science, will be objective. I think the form of the argument is valid, which is useful since it focuses the debate on the premises.The basis for premise 2 is a philosophical position on perception called direct realism: "the theory that perceiving is epistemically direct, unmediated by conscious or unconscious inference" (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). Essentially, we perceive the world directly, unmediated by mental representations. When I look at a chair, I perceive the chair, not a mental image of a chair.I do make a distinction between form and object in perception. So for example, when I see a chair, I perceive it in a different form from a bat that perceives the chair by echolocation. But this only shows that there are different ways of directly perceiving the chair - both of these ways of perceiving the chair are objectively correct, given the sensory organs that the bat and I have. If we perceived the chair in any other way, our senses would be deceiving us, and would not be objectively valid.So, with regard to the senses:1. Objectivity means the grasp of an object in a form appropriate to the subject.2. The senses present their objects in a form appropriate to the subject.3. Therefore, the senses are objectively valid.Logic is objectively valid because it is based on axioms that are objectively true and self evident. These include the axioms that something exists objectively, that A is A, that I am conscious, and that the world contains real causal connections. The law of identity, which says that A is A, forms the basis for deductive reasoning. The law of causality, which says that an entity with the same (relevant) traits will always act the same way under the same circumstances, forms the basis for inductive reasoning.On the basis of these axioms, we can move from individual sensory statements to broader generalizations about causality and deduce implications from the causal connections that we discover. This enables us to use logic as a tool to build up a systematic body of knowledge about the world which is objectively valid - science. But, since logic has to proceed from premises that we can see are true, and move by steps that are comprehensible to us, it constitutes the grasp of its objects in a form appropriate to the subject.1. Objectivity means the grasp of an object in a form appropriate to the subject.2. Logic results in a grasp of the object in a form appropriate to the subject.3. Therefore, logic is objectively valid.The rules of logic are the "rules" I was referring to earlier.I hope it is now clear how my position differs from a subjectivist view of knowledge. Here are two ways my opponent can refute my position:(a) If the senses are deceptive or invalid, then science is not objective. In that case, it would not constitute a "grasp of an object," so it would not meet my definition. It would just be a bunch of sky castles.(b) If the axioms of logic are not valid, or if concept formation or induction are subjective or invalid processes, then science is not objective. Again, it would not be a "grasp of an object," because it would just be a series of cognitive distortions or arbitrary guesses.Clearly, my position is substantively different from claiming that science is subjective.I would like to add that most philosophers who object to the objectivity of science do make substantial arguments against either the objectivity of the senses or the objectivity of logic, they don't just stipulate a definition and call it a day. I interpret Hume and Nietzsche as saying science is basically subjective, but neither of them argued their case by making a simple two step deductive argument from the definition of objectivity.1b. My Opponent's DefinitionMy opponent cites a paper which allegedly presents evidence that many published papers are biased. Even if the findings of this paper are correct, it just indicates a problem with the current peer review system in science, not some sort of metaphysical problem with science itself. The author of the paper himself recommends ways to mitigate the issues he points out, which is inconsistent with him regarding science as hopelessly subjective. If he wants to show that science is not objective, he must show that this applies to well established science, not just a couple of recent publications. I have used examples like Kepler's laws and Newton's laws because they have been considered well established and uncontroversial for centuries. This is the kind of discovery my opponent needs to undermine to maintain his position.He wonders if I was agreeing to his definition of objectivity. No, I was just recommending that he use one of the two disjuncts, since it seemed to express his point better. I intended part 2 of my Round 1 post as an objection to his definition - it does not start with the facts, as a proper definition should.2. My Opponent's Key Support for the ResolutionMy opponent argues that his definition of objectivity is "the most perfectly common and mundane definition that is available." That it may be, but it is a strawman nonetheless. There are no authorities on how to define terms in philosophy, since the terms themselves are often what is being analyzed. In fact, this definition of objectivity is an inheritance from Plato which should have been thrown out a long time ago, along with Plato's Forms and Kant's noumenal realm.He points to the disagreement over the definition of objectivity and says, "The very definition of "objectivity" seems to be perfectly subjective." This is an odd argument to make when his own case depends on a specific definition of objectivity. It also contradicts his earlier assertion that his definition is "common and mundane." (Does everyone agree with him, or is there widespread disagreement? It can't be both.) At any rate, this is really another argument from authority - matters of philosophical truth are not settled by a public opinion poll, but by the facts.He criticizes my use of Kepler and Newton, but hopefully my explanation of my concept of objectivity will have clarified this. The difference between scientific discoveries like Kepler and Newton made and astrology or mysticism is that the former are based on rigorous sensory observation (which is objective) and proceeds by means of the axioms and principles of logic (which are objective). The results, therefore, are objective.3. My Opponent's Attempted ReinforcementsMy opponent attempts to argue from Popper that the basic statements science starts out with are intersubjective, not objective. This claim is very implausible, and he offers no argument for it. (Really? "The light blinked twice" isn't objective?) But implausibility aside, this argument is self refuting, since it implies that the observations it itself is based on are only intersubjective, not objective.4. ConclusionThis has been a long post, so I'll summarize my main points.1a. Science is based on sensory observation and logic, which are both objective by my definition.1b. My opponent needs to criticize well established science, not just recent publications.2. Arguments from authority don't establish a definition in philosophy.3. Claiming that all observation is merely intersubjective is very implausible and self refuting.I have enjoyed this debate so far, and I look forward to my opponent's final post.