Challenging the Objectivity of Science

[Philosophy Now]

Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi observes science to get the facts straight about it.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/169/Challenging_the_Objectivity_of_Science

[Will Bouwman]

...observations are interpreted within theoretical frameworks, and as those frameworks change, so does our understanding of the observations.

I agree with pretty much everything in the article: science is a human construct and not objective. Having said that, it doesn't seem to me that whatever theory we laden our observations with, they can create or negate those observations. Stuff happens, it affects us and regardless of theory or paradigm through which we filter it, the stuff that happens, happens, I'm fairly confident, independently of how it is interpreted.

[Eodnhoj7]

...observations are interpreted within theoretical frameworks, and as those frameworks change, so does our understanding of the observations.

I agree with pretty much everything in the article: science is a human construct and not objective. Having said that, it doesn't seem to me that whatever theory we laden our observations with, they can create or negate those observations. Stuff happens, it affects us and regardless of theory or paradigm through which we filter it, the stuff that happens, happens, I'm fairly confident, independently of how it is interpreted.

Theory is the observation for observation is interpretation, truth is story telling.

[Will Bouwman]

Theory is the observation for observation is interpretation...

Well, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.

...truth is story telling.

Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.

[Eodnhoj7]

Theory is the observation for observation is interpretation...

Well, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.

...truth is story telling.

Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.

Nice story...

[Will Bouwman]

Nice story...

Feel free to retell it.

[popeye1945]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nice story...

Feel free to retell it.

Don't have to...reality is its own narrative.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent just like what is subjective is context dependent.

The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations than not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions for that is what this things ultimately are.

[popeye1945]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent, just like what is subjective is context dependent.
The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations, then not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions, for that is what these things ultimately are.

The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent, just like what is subjective is context dependent.
The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations, then not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions, for that is what these things ultimately are.

The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Objectivity is purely an application of context.

[popeye1945]

Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent, just like what is subjective is context dependent.
The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations, then not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions, for that is what these things ultimately are.

The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Objectivity is purely an application of context.

One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.

[Eodnhoj7]

The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Objectivity is purely an application of context.

One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.

The physical world is a distinction, one cannot point to the empirical but by conceptualization. Concepts are contexts.

[popeye1945]

Objectivity is purely an application of context.

One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.

The physical world is a distinction, one cannot point to the empirical but by conceptualization. Concepts are contexts.

Ok, perhaps we are splitting hairs here, would the reaction to pattern recognition be the same as your conceptualization? Would identifying an object be your idea of conceptualization? Would a sensation of the body, and then an understanding of that sensation, relative to what it means to the body/organism, have the same meaning?

[Impenitent]

Theory is the observation for observation is interpretation...

Well, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.

...truth is story telling.

Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.

not true? but Horton heard that Who...

and no, Pete wasn't there

-Imp