Science

[heart]

I am curious what the different types would think/feel about the following quote:

Science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data.

[darlets]

I think the quote suffers from a common tactic of trying to turn the b.s factor up slowly hoping no one would notice. The statements become more and more out there as the author progresses, though it's hard to know exactly what they are refering too towards the end. Does it have more context?

Does the author state what has been fudged? What data has been thrown out?

How do we know it's been discarded if we haven't measured it? Surely our senses are measurement instruments?

[niffer]

Er. Well, it could be right, but my own definition of science is pretty loose. In fact, kind of nonexistant. Science is basically..how stuff works. And since stuff works, we now only need to find out the how. Science is the art of answering "how" and "why" questions. And so it doesn't really matter if scientists exclude certain things because of course, in order to completely explain something (as opposed to an isolated system or whatever that is "down to a science"), one would have to explain the entire world, which would be very time consuming and also wouldn't be completely accurate, since accuracy is kinda subjective too. (Am I making sense?)

Either way, it's kinda hard to be objective about something that is a part of a very big whole which interacts with lots of other parts that make it, including that one.

Um. Please tell me if I've got the definition of objective wrong.

[heart]

There is no right or wrong way to answer as far as I am concerned. I am just curious as to what the reactions of the different types would be to this quote.

[Sahara]

I find I can not make up my mind yet as there is not enough information, the only thought that keeps coming to mind, is what specific case with fudged up data are they talking about.

[niffer]

Originally Posted by heart

There is no right or wrong way to answer as far as I am concerned. I am just curious as to what the reactions of the different types would be to this quote.

Very interesting idea for a thread, btw.

[runvardh]

That's not science, thats just a pessimistic description for the beaurocracy of the scientific community. Science is a search for truth, the beaurocracy (at worst) just wants their truth.

[ptgatsby]

The quote is contradicted by the concept that science is eventually predictive. That which predicts cannot of errantly thrown away relevent factors.

[runvardh]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The quote is contradicted by the concept that science is eventually predictive. That which predicts cannot of errantly thrown away relevent factors.

Hence why I saw it more as a description of beaurocracy instead.

[Athenian200]

I would say that it represents one view of Science. Even scientists admit that science isn't perfect, and can't take everything into account. It is limited by the data available, and the mental constraints of human beings. A certain amount of ambiguity has to be dealt with, as we can't perfectly model reality in the theoretical.

I'm probably INFJ.