Do you believe humanity is capable of absolute objectivity? Can we actually assess people, religion, morality, politics, cultures... etc. in a completely unbiased way?
Science does this but I think you are branching the question out into sociological realms and my answer is yes I do but only if we make major breakthroughs in neuroscience. As of right now people believe in things like free will and evil and innocence. The parameters we use to determine the value of ones actions are terribly inadequate. I think everyone remembers the Virginia Tech shooting. What a lot of people don't know is that the shooters mom knew there was something wrong with her son and thanks to her faith she knew what she had to do. She took him from church to church to have an exorcism performed to remove the demons that were possessing him. She found one, they performed the exorcism and a few weeks later 32 people were dead including her son and 17 were wounded. Most of us understand that the true cause of this behavior is mental disorders not evil spirits but that obviously wasn't always true. Science continues to bring more objectivity into our understanding pushing the subjective bias to the fringes.
Generally speaking, no. Humanity is too tribal to be objective. I'm not sure such a thing exists period. Science is not perfect either and can be unobjective too.
Do you believe that humans are capable of being completely objective is the question... a question that you have yet to give an answer for. As science is not a person but a field of study it is not in and of itself objective or unobjective. Science is only as good as the premise that it is based upon and it is fallible man who decides the premise. Do you see "human Thinking" as infallible? If not then how can science be objective if it is based upon the fallible human mind (thinking)?
Um the silliness of Post-modernism anything ,that all is "relative ". Science is Based on Reality ,reflected and understood in the human mind. You can take a science experiment ,say adding Sodium to Hydrochloric acid ,and guess what your thinking is irrelevant to the result ,and I can tell you half a planet away what exactly will happen and if I know the ratio can tell you Objectively what weight of Water and Salt you will have . Because ,science is proved in its Application to be OBJECTIVE, theory Subjective OBJECTIVLY Proven ,Proofs are what we scientists call them ,Proof objective of our theories based on a Historically developed and PROVEN body of Knowledge ,History being the OBJECTIVE measure of course.through the Practice of Science . ,we call them LAWS OF SCIENCE , not silly meanderings of a Subjective anything Nature.Or silly relativist Post-modernist silly subjective Idealism ,or "Common sense " stupidity ! Oh and we Know Objective Reality exists because all Human Thought thinks about it, REALITY is concrete and depends not on you thinking about it.
Recycled answer from post #5. As science is not a person but a field of study it is not in and of itself objective or unobjective. Science is only as good as the premise that it is based upon and it is fallible man who decides the premise. How can science be absolutely objective if it is a construct of the fallible human mind? I would tend to agree but does not your choice of words "subjective bias" speak to the lack of absolute objectivity of the human mind?
It would be false to assume that anything that is science is objective. While there certainly are parts of science which can be seen as objective, that's a statement we shouldn't trust too far. Not because it will suddenly fail, but because humans are bad at figuring out where the line goes. By asking specific questions, shifting focus to certain concepts and angles, it is easy to mislead using only true statements. A careful scientific approach includes also a full assessment of how well we know whatever-it-is. There are many case where I would argue complete or at least sufficient objectivity can be reached, but they tend not to be so common or helpful when dealing with humans. Those areas where anything of the kind can be reached are usually not part of the debate any more.
Science is objective because of the collective which he mentioned. http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review.htm We are not talking about someone thinking something up one day and asking his friend if he agrees with him. - - - Updated - - - Do you think that will always be the case? - - - Updated - - -
Yes. I'm sure we'll always figure out some more, and then forget some and some will become more important than others or so on, but I think there's too much for humanity to have figured out all at once. Maybe if most of humanity gets wiped out and there are two guys left who don't hate each other, but I don't think humans will ever stop to overvalue one's own experiences and since no one can have all experiences, we'll always have to introduce subjective interpretations of things.
I didn't make this clear but I never used the term absolute because in my mind it conjures up the idea of a wall where the human mind has reached the end of understanding, where there is nothing left to question. So yes I disagree with the idea of reaching an absolute objectivity but then again I consider the term absolute a negative in this sense. However we can reach an objective understanding of the things you mentioned in the OP as science brings more objectivity into the equation while removing more subjectivity. Science has done this on many levels.
I can certainly see this but hasn't science already changed the balance between objective and subjective knowledge and understanding? Mental disorders versus evil spirits, superstitions versus luck and happenstance? Obviously this process will be long and strenuous but doesn't all evolutionary processes have its ups and downs, backs and forths? Are there no avenues in neuroscience that could lead to a greater understanding of the human condition that while they may be hard to grasp or understand for us would simply be known to future generations?
And that which "is understood in the human mind" is absolutely objective? Do scientists always agree? If not then how would one decide which one was biased? Can they both be biased? Can neither be biased yet reach different conclusions?
A mutual agreement is not likely to manifest until there is evidence to which view will provide the most funding for future research.... then they will both jump on the same bandwagon.
I think peer review is the closest that we humans can come to being absolutely objective. But close is not absolute. At best a peer review can remove bias to the point of giving the best chance of an accurate result. How many times in history has science been turned on its ear with the discovery of new information? And how many times have fallible scientists been slow to embrace new ideas? Science is awesome, the human mind is fallible.
We already have absolute objectivity in purely mathematical systems that use basic arithmetic and use basic logical properties. These systems are so absolutely objective that they cannot prove all of their true statements. For example, adding two even numbers together will always equal an even number. We can have an infinite number of even numbers to add, so we can never directly find all the answers possible in this system. This is because it is a purely conceptual exercise, and devoid of cognitive biases. It is difficult to try and approximate the value of some things in the material world, like people. Arithmetic doesn't have to be limited by something we can directly observe, where as something like people must be. The chaotic nature of the material world is limiting in that respect.
Yeah, but the really hard questions we are facing are not a matter of facts. In fact, I find that being sure that that is the case is usually a sign of having not understood the problems rather than actually having a more objective standpoint. We don't need that advanced neuroscience to figure all of these things out. Sure, it'd be neat if we could model a brain, but the world would be a much nicer place if world leaders just followed the instructions in one of the £2.50 self help books from the book guy at the Sunday market. The bottleneck isn't the understanding, it's the incentive. And incentive simply doesn't exist, or rather, there isn't an incentive general enough.
Then an acceptance by the entire human race of that 'peer review' would in effect be an appeal to popularity. A logical fallacy.
While obviously exorcism didn't work in this case, science didn't work either. Cho was diagnosed by a psychiatrist to be safe enough to not be allowed to be treated on an outpatient basis,rather than being admitted to a mental hospital. His mother had also tried to get psychiatric treatment for him as well.
Let's take another view: Science (psychiatry and drug treatment) did not work: Religion (exorcism) did not work: Are there other options? Well I would imagine that there are other conceivable methods that could possibly work (don't know exactly what they would be or how they would work); So..... can it be that the scenario that was played out was a matter of predestination? Or... was it a matter of random chance created by some influence like 'dark matter' or possibly the effects of the gravitational pull of some 'black hole' or other orbiting body in space? Perhaps it was due to Russell's Tea Pot affecting the lives of just certain privileged people?
A scientific peer review is only a consensus within that group which is then presented to the world. Some will accept the results of the peer review as fact (regardless of whether or not it actually is), while others will challenge the findings and perhaps even reject the results. Peer review is rarely if ever the end of a debate, and a dominant condenses is not synonymous with being the right/correct/true/factual view.
Then why are such findings presented in a manner that infers that they are the "right/correct/true/factual" condition? To even suggest that the findings are a consensus is seeking the approval of the readers of such findings, thus a solicitation for an appeal to popularity. Why publish such findings if they are not "right/correct/true/factual"?
Science wasn't the fail here. Cho could've been restrained, treated, and never harmed anyone but there are laws that govern that sort of thing. It's the law that is the failure, or rather Mr. Cho's rights under the law. There are very liberal laws in place to protect an individuals mental and physical autonomy, and for good reason. Look at North Korea. No mass shooting, not sanctioned by the state. Do we want to keep our individual freedom to mass murder whenever we choose, or do we want to hand mass murder over to the state? I'll take my chances with the Cho's of the world.
Inference is subjective as IMO the human mind is not capable of absolute objective thought. Because of this the premise of ones inference will to a degree be biased thus returning an unobjective conclusion. I see irony in your attempt to use logic as a rebuttal to science as both are based in the fallible human mind... both science and logic are only as good as their premise. I disagree as consensus is not synonymous with seeking approval or appeal to popularity.
