Science, Objectivity and Subjectivity
Objectivity
reliable knowledge is objective
assumes that a truth or independent reality exists outside of any investigation or observation
researcher's task is this model - to uncover this reality without contaminating it in any way
implies a lack of bias, judgement, or prejudice on the part of the researcher
an ideal for scientific inquiry
gives us good basis to trust the conclusions of science and generally acknowledge that scientific knowledge is superior and more reliable than opinions or conclusions arrived at simply by rationality
To work towards the ideal of objectivity, science relies on accurate observation, generation of hypothesis, measurement and experimentation
conclusions based only on rationality, opinion or intuition are in themselves subjective
subjectivity implies that one's argument or conclusion is influenced by his/her emotions or opinions
subjectivity implies that one's argument or conclusion is influenced by his/her emotions or opinions
subjectivity is fine in arguments and discussions reflecting different viewpoints (politics/sports/religion/philosophy/art etc.) but it is not what science is about
these form the basis of the scientific method, the accepted systematic way of carrying out scientific research
logic and reasoning have an important role in scientific inquiry, but science goes beyond accepting explanations because they seem reasonable
these plausible explanations need to be supported by empirical evidence
inductive reasoning
often used by the researcher to generate hypotheses
but these tentative hypotheses cannot be accepted unless they are confirmed by rigorous testing though experiments
deductive reasoning
relied upon to support or reject hypotheses
deductive logic relies on using established knowledge to derive new knowledge
In deductive reasoning, if the initial premise is true, the conclusions drawn will also be true if correct, logical reasoning was used to derive the conclusions
claims, methods and results of science should not be influenced by one's perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests (however, this is sometimes easier said than done)
each person's morals and values, preferred theories, political views etc can potentially influence the type of research undertaken, the methods used and the interpretation of the results of the research
up to some decades ago, it was largely accepted that relying on empirical evidence was some sort of guarantee that the conclusions of science would be reliable and objective.
this formed the basis of the positivist approach
positivism holds that through relying on empirical evidence, we can discover these laws and understand the universe
however, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Universe and its workings are highly complex
methods and conclusions of science are not always as objective as one may desire
the positivist approach gave way to never, post-positivist ideas
critical realism
common form of post positivism
like the positivist, the critical realist recognises an objective reality but is critical of our ability to get to know this reality with certainty
even relying on empirical evidence has its limitations
observations can be erroneous or inaccurate and all theory is subject to future revision
most research is carried out within a paradigm that defines and conditions the scientific discipline at a given time
if the existing paradigm is flawed, what may have been viewed as objective conclusions of research may require reassessment in the light of any eventual future paradigm shift
paradigm shift
a situation in which the usual and accepted way of doing or thinking something changes completely
"There is no absolute knowledge...All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility." - J. Bronowski
conclusion
the concept of scientific objectivity is somewhat of a myth - yet is it an ideal to work towards
the scientific method itself, and the self correcting mechanism of science represents ways to work totwards this ideal