REISS & SPRENGER, 2020: SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY Flashcards
What is meant by the term scientific objectivity?
Scientific objectivity is that scientific claims, methods, results are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgements, community bias, or personal interests.
Why objectivity good?
. It is often stated as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge and is the basis of authority that science has on society.
How is the role of objectivity discussed within science
Understanding the role that objectivity plays in science is integral to fully understanding and appreciating debates in the philosophy of science. Mainly, objectivity is discussed in how desirable it is and whether or not it can be achieved.
Science gained is admiration from the general public because it is considered objective or at least more objective than other mode of inquiry. Has science attained that objectivity?
Though objectivity is heavily desired by science, several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable.
The philosophical reasoning behind the conception of objectivity is the view that there are facts in the world which the scientists are tasked with discovering, analysing and systematising. Thus, science is objective to the degree that it succeeds at discovering and generalising facts, excluding the perspective of the individual scientist.
What are meant by objective qualities?
Objective qualities are qualities that remain constant through changes of perspective e.g actual temperature vs subjective feelings of hot or cold
Nagel (1986) states that we arrive at the idea of objective qualities in three steps. Name these three steps
- Realize (or postulate) that our perceptions are caused by the actions of things around us, through their effects on our body.
- Realize (or postulate) that since the same qualities that cause perceptions in us also have effects on other things and can exist without causing any perceptions at all, their true nature must be detachable from their perspectival appearance and need not resemble.
- From a conception of that “true nature” independent of any perspective (i.e. the view from nowhere, absolute conception). This concept represented the world as it is and is unmediated by human minds or other “distortions”.
This absolute conception lies at the basis of scientific realism and it is attractive for a number of different reasons. Describe four of these
- Settling disagreements
Provides a basis for judging between conflicting viewpoints. - Explaining the world
It provides a simple and unified account of the world. One of the goals is science is to provide explanations for natural phenomena, one way to realize this goal is by casting them in terms of absolute conception. The absolute conception explains how itself, and other perspectives of it, are possible. In other words, this conception explains reality itself (e.g. actual height of a tree) and how others perceive that reality differently (e.g. two different observations of the height of the tree). - Predicting phenomena
If the world is made up of structures characterized by absolute conception and we did have access to it, we could use our knowledge of it to ground predictions. - Manipulation and control
Similarly, our knowledge of these structure can be used find attempts to manipulate and control phenomena.
Is the concept of absolute conception necessary and sufficient for attaining the previous four purposes? What consequence does this have?
The absolute conception is sufficient in attaining the above four purposes, but not necessary. However, our ability to use science to represent facts about the world depend on whether these claims can explicitly be established on the basis of evidence. There are challenges in this idea that science can produce claims that describe an absolute conception.
Who (mentioned first) criticised how objectivity is viewed in science and what was the criticism based on?
Kuhn (1962) criticized how objectivity was viewed in science. His criticism was based on the assumption that scientists always view research problems through the lens of a paradigm, defined by a set of relevant problems, axioms, methodological presuppositions, etc
What did Kuhn stress about observations?
Kuhn stressed that observations are “theory-laden”, in other words, they depend on a body of theoretical assumptions through which they are perceived and conceptualized.
Kuhn’s hypothesis was made up of two important aspects. Describe these
- Meaning
The meaning of observation concepts is influenced by theoretical assumptions and presuppositions. Kuhn denies that there is a theory-independent observation language. “Faithfulness to reality” of an observation report is always mediated by a theoretical superstructure, which disables the role of observation reports as an impartial, fact-dependent arbiter between different theories. - Perception
The perception of a scientist depends on the paradigm she is working in. Our own sense data are shaped and structure by a theoretical framework and could be completely different from the sense data other scientists work from. Thus, it is hard to assess which theory or paradigm is more objective
Furthermore, the thesis of theory-ladenness has been expanded to include what regarding different paradigms?
Furthermore, the thesis of theory-ladenness has been expanded to include the incommensurability of different paradigms or scientific theories. Incommensurability means having no measure in common and is used in arguments against a linear and standpoint-independent picture of scientific progress.
What is meant by Kuhn loss?
The phenomenon of Kuhn loss is when not all puzzles that can be solved in the old paradigm will be solved by the new one
How are theories tested in science?
Theories in science are tested by comparing their implications with the results of observations and experiments.
What is meant by the undetermination of theory by evidence?
The undertermination of theory by evidence is the idea that evidence may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it. Any body of empirical data is compatible with an infinite number of possible incompatible theories. Results, both positive and negative, do not allow for unambiguous inferences about the theory. A positive result can be obtained even though the theory is false due to some alternative theory that makes the same predictions. A negative result might also be obtained because one or more assumptions are needed to derive a prediction from the theory.
What claim did Duhem (1906) make on this topic?
Duhem (1906) concluded that there was no “crucial experiment”, an experiment that conclusively decides between two alternative theories was best, and that scientists had to use their expert judgement to determine what the results would mean for the truth or falsehood of a theory. In essence, there is currently a gap between the evidence and theory supported by it.
If Duhem’s theory is correct then the idea to remain faithful to facts is untenable, give three points to support this
- If the scientific image of the world is a product of facts and scientists’ value judgements, then that image cannot be without human perspective.
- The relation between evidence and scientific theories is problematic. Scientific theories contain abstract claims that describe states of affairs far removed from the immediacy of sense experience. Whether they faithfully represent the world or not is up to debate.
- Scientific theories are tested against experimental facts or phenomena which are also unobservable without to the unaided senses. Experimental facts or phenomena are instead established using intricate procedures of measurement and experimentation.
What is meant by experimenters regress?
Experimenter’s regress is a loop of dependence between theory and evidence. According to Collins, in order to judge whether evidence is incorrect scientists must rely on theory-based expectations (e.g to know whether the apparatus producing the result is reliable) and to judge the value of competing theories we rely on evidence.
How does Collins claim this cycle is broken?
He argues that this cycle is broken not by the “facts” themselves but by factors concerning scientists’ career, social and cognitive interests of his community, and expected fruitfulness for future work. Additionally this does not mean he thinks scientific results are arbitrary, he argues that experimental results do not represent absolute conceptions but that facts and phenomena of science are necessarily perspectival.
How did Franklin (1994) contribute to this debate on scientific objectivity?
Franklin (1994) has attempted to demonstrate that disagreements can be settled with reasoned judgement based on epistemological criteria (e.g. experimental checks and calibration). He does not address whether reasoned judgement would guarantee an absolute conception and would guarantee that experimental results are aperspectival.
