Is the scientific community stupid?

By the definition of the word.

Definition of objective
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

It it extremely difficult to take out peoples subjective views in most everything. But math and physics.

 

Weirdly enough when arguing the definitions of words, the worst thing to do is quote a dictionary. Dictionaries aren't usually considered a source of authority. I don't believe the "objectivity comes from method" argument, but that's the argument.

 

It's not a question simply to say it's right and explain why. It's also about making sure we are on the same page before we start talking. Without common ground people can't argue. They just talk past each other.

 

Zero = nothing.

 

If we can't use a dictionary to define words, how do we define a word?
Just make up the meaning of a word? Nothing would ever be solved if everyone defines their own meanings. Which is basically the meaning of subjective.

 

All politicians want to control people. That's how they get their vote. Partisan hackery noted.

Scientists, most, don't care about changing society. Only to be accurate in what they state.

 

Dictionaries are good as a stopgap measure. If we're not arguing the definition of a word, then you can use it.

In terms of objectivity of words, words aren't generally considered objective in the sense they refer to the objective in of itself. Mostly because it gets circular pretty fast. The issue then becomes one of how we transfer private language into public language. A simple answer is to say there is a pragmatic need to make commonly defined words, and shun those that still rely on private language. Personally I prefer a coherent view that gives language more flexibility. Basically the words we have are learned from experience, and given structure through un/conscious cognition. Then we fit those words into what we know to create sentences that have meaning external of us. In this sense languages are private, but we strive to find ways to communicate that which we see into a coherent picture.

 

How can there be common ground when a word can't be defined? Or at least the book designed for defining words.

 

Even though the words we use may be subjective, the experiences we have can be grounded in an objective reality. Parts of it need to fit into which we already know as we deduce their relations together. It is this deduction where objectivity can be found.

 

The word, objective, is hardly a private word.

Again, if we have to fit words, those are subjective and not objective. Objectiveness can have no bias. IMO, it has to be absolute. Your bias and my bias can't play a factor.

 

No, not to me.
If experiences come into play, it is subjective. NOT objective. Objective view are void of bias/experience. It can't be refuted by anyone.
Your reality can be different from my reality. Objective means to me, all come to the same conclusion for subjectiveness does not come into play.

 

Then how do we know something without experience?

 

Then couldn't a method be objective? So long as we both agree the method has been followed the same way, then the method could be considered "objective" because neither of our biases came into play.

 

I think lots of scientists in the social sciences only care about their theories that further their sociological agenda in society.

Being born gay, being able to choose gender based on feelings.. things like that

 

I do not think the scientific community is stupid. I think the scientific community is used as a weapon by government and elites to bludgeon the general population. I think the setting up of science as an unquestionable “god replacement” is certainly a problem. I see posts in this thread where people are prostrating themselves before science they don’t understand and don’t care to, simply on the basis of appeal to authority.

 

Sometimes they sure seem stupid to me, for example they just found out clouds cover Greenland in 2016


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/12/scientists-just-found-an-unexpected-factor-that-could-be-driving-greenlands-ice-loss/?outputType=amp

 

I am still waiting for the breaking news that scientist find out clouds cover the entire earth surface

 

Geez. My faith in the scientific community is shaken. Every farmer or rancher understands the effect of cloud cover on temperature, frost onset and snow/ice melt. Sometimes your livelihood hangs in the balance of whether cloud cover dissolves before or after sunrise. If climate scientists are just now figuring this out, what else are they missing? Geez.

 

Your ONGOING FAILURE to substantiate your vacuous allegations is NOT my problem.

 

I am going to predict that your doctoral thesis is going to fail if you use your own made up meanings for dictionary defined terminology.

 

So just because you personally have never been to the moon the landings never happened?

 

Some of us understand the science and therefore do NOT accept the hyperbolic science deniers nonsense.

 

Classic example of science denier nonsense!

 

No but so specialized that outside their fields of study they should have no authority the age of the Great Enlightened Human gentle person scholar died in the 19th century.

 

In the age of specialization we see the PhD as one wo knows absolutely everything about slightly more than nothing.