How Key is Inter-subjective verification to the sciences?

[Sunstone]

Do all scientific methods of inquiry have as a crucial, core component the requirement that their findings be subject to inter-subjective verification, at least in principle? Why or why not? If not, what are some examples of methods that do not have the requirement?

Inter-subjective verification -- verified by two or more people.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't think of any right away that would not have such a need. Even mathematics (at least arguably not even a science) seems to have it.

People may be mistaken, sincere but deluded, or have goals or motivations that might lead them into incorrect statements and conclusions.

 

[bain-druie]

Do all scientific methods of inquiry have as a crucial, core component the requirement that their findings be subject to inter-subjective verification, at least in principle? Why or why not? If not, what are some examples of methods that do not have the requirement?

Inter-subjective verification -- verified by two or more people.

I believe - and I certainly hope - this is a requirement for all sciences, since intersubjective verification is the closest we can get to objectivity, being subjective creatures ourselves.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe - and I certainly hope - this is a requirement for all sciences, since intersubjective verification is the closest we can get to objectivity, being subjective beings ourselves.

Well put!

 

[Laika]

Do all scientific methods of inquiry have as a crucial, core component the requirement that their findings be subject to inter-subjective verification, at least in principle? Why or why not? If not, what are some examples of methods that do not have the requirement?

Inter-subjective verification -- verified by two or more people.

If yes, its hidden. The philosophy of science has focused on "why science works?" and therefore has a strong bias towards treating scientific statements as automatically true. However, historians of science and sociological understanding of science shows how scientific theories change over time and evolve, which suggests science is not wholly objective or absolute path to truth. Science is made by human beings and so therefore scientific knowledge is subject to human limitations. we can only see as far as our telescopes and our knowledge is limited by our technology to both observe and replicated natural processes.

"truth" is not based on consensus, i.e. by inter-subjective verification, because you are still talking about objectively existing things and processes. There is "some" role of subjectivity in science, i.e. hunches as a basis for a hypothesis and pursuing the "crazy" idea no-one else has thought of, but so far as I know it is a taboo subject in scientific circles. it opens up the problem of how much of science is based on truth and on faith. its probably a combination of both, but as its ideas can be demonstrated to be true by repeating experiments and observations, it is still more true than most religions.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In the social sciences (including applied fields, such as my own, management and policy), there are a few kinds of qualitative methods that while in principle could rely on inter-subjective verification, in practice don't really. Among these are biography, phenomenological studies, grounded-theory studies, ethnography, textual analysis, and case studies. There are more kinds, and variations of each. each have their uses in various contexts, but they are not particularly easy to learn how to do, and to make sense of their findings. Many of these kinds of study require a formal assessment of subjective reliability, calling for at least two trained individuals to assess the same information and generally agree with the conclusions based on the premises of the study. Usually, these kinds of studies are preliminary to survey and other kinds of statistical analyses, to identify new potential variables for analysis.

Of course, these methods are not usually appropriate for physics, chemistry, engineering and as on.

edit: Except as analysis of the social aspects of these fields--the sociology of physics, for example, the study of how the people who participate in physics interact as individuals and social units.

 

[bain-druie]

Well put!

 

[bain-druie]

If yes, its hidden. The philosophy of science has focused on "why science works?" and therefore has a strong bias towards treating scientific statements as automatically true. However, historians of science and sociological understanding of science shows how scientific theories change over time and evolve, which suggests science is not wholly objective or absolute path to truth. Science is made by human beings and so therefore scientific knowledge is subject to human limitations. we can only see as far as our telescopes and our knowledge is limited by our technology to both observe and replicated natural processes.

"truth" is not based on consensus, i.e. by inter-subjective verification, because you are still talking about objectively existing things and processes. There is "some" role of subjectivity in science, i.e. hunches as a basis for a hypothesis and pursuing the "crazy" idea no-one else has thought of, but so far as I know it is a taboo subject in scientific circles. it opens up the problem of how much of science is based on truth and on faith. its probably a combination of both, but as its ideas can be demonstrated to be true by repeating experiments and observations, it is still more true than most religions.

Right; what 'objectively existing' actually entails is debatable. Inherently subjective perception is all we have to explore the universe with, so when subatomic theory tells us everything solid is actually made up of mostly empty space, and everything stationary is actually in constant motion, it requires faith of a sort to believe it. Even things we can observe with our unaided senses require faith, since science often indicates that the evidence of our senses is misleading. That faith is more or less justified based on our own investigation, perhaps, but also on the separate investigations of others who come to their own conclusions. When the same conclusion is reached by multiple unrelated subjective investigations, we're as close as we can come to objectivity.

In science this works differently than it does in spirituality because it is generally far more consistent in its results from unbiased investigators. And by 'unbiased' I mean someone who has no dog in that fight; no personal stake in particular results. When someone has an attachment to a specific outcome and really *wants* something to be true or false, they may [even unconsciously] create a bias blinder.

But really, we can never be 100% sure that even agreed upon conclusions are actually in consensus; you and I may both agree the sky is blue, but how do I know you mean the same thing by 'blue' that I mean? The best we can do, imho, is intersubjective verification; but even that provides no absolutes.

 

[BSM1]

I'm sorry...this just isn't right!!

 

[bain-druie]

I'm sorry...this just isn't right!!

My deepest apologies ... however, his form is much better than mine. He is my Curtsy Ideal!

 

[Laika]

Right; what 'objectively existing' actually entails is debatable. Inherently subjective perception is all we have to explore the universe with, so when subatomic theory tells us everything solid is actually made up of mostly empty space, and everything stationary is actually in constant motion, it requires faith of a sort to believe it. Even things we can observe with our unaided senses require faith, since science often indicates that the evidence of our senses is misleading. That faith is more or less justified based on our own investigation, perhaps, but also on the separate investigations of others who come to their own conclusions. When the same conclusion is reached by multiple unrelated subjective investigations, we're as close as we can come to objectivity.

I don't think it is our senses that are mis-leading. With our senses we percieve the objectively existing world BUT there is always an economic limit on the amount we can percieve, on what we can describe. The universe and knowledge of it is infinite (compared to our sense anyway), whilst our knowledge is the finite product of our activities. we never have 100% truth, but the more we do, the more we experiment, the more we can learn about the properties of the world around us.

Even when your dealing with a case such as hallucinations or dellusions, they are often projections of our own unconscious thoughts. So they still represent a kaledoscopic view of the world. though dancing pink elephants aren't real- taken seperately; pink, dancing and elephants are.

Where there is perhaps a "faith" of sorts, is that knowledge is not simply our own, but is a collective inheritence. our understanding is sort of like chinese whispers as it has been distorted from the person who originally percieved it to get to us. as individuals we can only know so much and so rely on others for our knowledge, such as parents or teachers, or whether we read about something in books or on the internet.

In science this works differently than it does in spirituality because it is generally far more consistent in its results from unbiased investigators. And by 'unbiased' I mean someone who has no dog in that fight; no personal stake in particular results. When someone has an attachment to a specific outcome and really *wants* something to be true or false, they may [even unconsciously] create a bias blinder.

I think scientists have their own "office politics". each person invests a part of themselves in their theories. it's "their baby" and they want it to be right. But you can't change the evidence (at least not without renoucing science as a practice anyway). that's why science is generally better as the evidence can and should take precedence. there is much less room for interpretation in natural sciences than their is in the social sciences.

But really, we can never be 100% sure that even agreed upon conclusions are actually in consensus; you and I may both agree the sky is blue, but how do I know you mean the same thing by 'blue' that I mean? The best we can do, imho, is intersubjective verification; but even that provides no absolutes.

"Blue" is an objective qualitity of the wave-length of light. So yes, whilst for example someone who is colourblind may not see blue, there is still an objective basis for a consensus that "blue" does exist. that probably does count as "inter-subjective" and as consensus. the object we observe exists (because everyone else can percieve it), independently of whether we percive it or not.

this could get complicated.

 

[Augustus]

this could get complicated.

I don't like that red emoticon

 

[DawudTalut]

Do all scientific methods of inquiry have as a crucial, core component the requirement that their findings be subject to inter-subjective verification, at least in principle? Why or why not? If not, what are some examples of methods that do not have the requirement?

Inter-subjective verification -- verified by two or more people.

Peace be on you.
Yes...If one agrees with following:
""The scientific method is a process for creating models of the natural world that can be verified experimentally. The scientific method requires making observations, recording data, and analyzing data in a form that can be duplicated by other scientists. In addition, the scientific method uses inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning to try to produce useful and reliable models of nature and natural phenomena....""
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm