What Makes Science Subjective?

[rational experiences]

I wonder whether you were born in 20th Century or in the First.

Human sex. About sixty one years ago two humans my parents had sex.

My mother and father in their thirties.

So about sixty one years ago. Not even a century by use words and numbers. So maybe by your thinking I don't even exist yet. When science possesses your reasonings falsely.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One measurement is subjective. Repeated, independent (made by different entities) measurements, that agree, are objective.

Actually, this claim raises several crucial issues relating to subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the practice(s) of scientific research.

1) One can easily find shows, specials, and other media in which persons who self-identify as e.g., “ghost hunters”, paranormal investigators, etc., use a variety of instruments to measure things like EMF and other supposed indicators of paranormal phenomena. The problem for the claim above is that they definitely are as capable of repeating measurements as any actual scientific researcher. Does that make their measurements objective? No. There is no theoretical framework (no “theory”) they are working within that allows them to justify the methods and tools employed in their repeated measurements with the subjective interpretations they employ. Clearly, repeated measurements can be utterly meaningless. This is part of the reason for Einstein’s explanation to Heisenberg that it is “nonsense” to speak of observables as somehow self-explanatory or objective. Rather, “it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe.”

2) In the labs that accompany physics I courses and similar introductory physical science classes in university one is introduced to measurement error, which is inevitable (perfect agreement is typically impossible even in principle). Typically, measurements are introduced as a combination of some true value, systematic error, and random error. Ignoring for the moment the serious philosophical, methodological, and practical concerns with the existence of a true value, the next big issue is how one identifies which kinds of errors are responsible for variations in measurements and how to account for them. In terms of systematic errors, one must rely on theory or theories. But for random variations, one relies on contradictory statistical methods. On the one hand, linear “error propagation” is assumed and justified on the bases of statistical variations one can derive via symmetry principles and probability theory for random variables. But random variables have a distribution themselves, while physical quantities do not. There is a basic, fundamental logical inconsistency. The resolution is to admit that one has to abandon the entire approach to measurement uncertainty if one is to use frequentist statistics, or to admit a subjective (Bayesian) approach in which one can indeed treat the quantities of interest in the manner one does, but without the logical contradictions.

3) Finally, it is important to keep in mind that no measurement is repeatable. This is because the idea of replicability is an idealization, and the extent to which the ideal is sufficiently approximated is a subjective evaluation on the part of the researchers performing the experiments.

 

[rational experiences]

Machine built presence never natural.

On earth natural is a mineral dust body state.

Dusts titled holy body.

As science has to alchemize the earth product the take it into an artificial destroyed state. Which is not copying natural history.

The science lie owning an unnatural form that a human thinker designed to also use thinking to control.

Which owns no natural status.

The teaching why science lied.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe science can be subjective by degree. The foundation of the sciences in the basic science such as physics, chemistry, biology, genetics and evolution are dominantly objective,and predictable sciences that evolve with more evidence and research. The advances in genetics has greatly increased the objectivity of evolution.

The behavioral and social sciences have more subjective elements. They are based on the basic sciences, but are subject to more subjective interpretive understanding of human nature. I believe the objective basis is increasing as related discoveries and research reinforce the objective foundation of the basic sciences increase. One factor that increases the objectivity in the social sciences is the increase in the comparative knowledge of animal behavior, evolution and genetics.

 

[rational experiences]

Science is subjective.

Subjects all variant presences exist first.

His thinking did not invent create their presence.

Subject truth natural.
Lying theism.

Artificial is science the subject how a human using scientific transmitted machinations changed all physical subjects.

Why man thinker for science can use science to determine change.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is subjective.

Subjects all variant presences exist first.

His thinking did not invent create their presence.

Subject truth natural.
Lying theism.

Artificial is science the subject how a human using scientific transmitted machinations changed all physical subjects.

Why man thinker for science can use science to determine change.

You do not remotely comprehend the English language,and the definitions of subjective and objective.

 

[rational experiences]

You do not remotely comprehend the English language,and the definitions of subjective and objective.

Tending to having the nature of active.

Notice Ive used again.

Meaning a subject. So it exists first. Reasoning its activity.

Humans subject activity is a human first is not a thesis first.

Subjective reasoning activity not human.

Man said I am a man.of God. Subject what is God to a man.

Subjective water oxygenated gods spirits reasoned as all other supportive gases are active also.

Subjective reasoning.

Objects are base components of their owned body subjected to thesis.

Satan ist. Men who listed thesis not objective or subjective.

Was abstract.

Abstract how to force change any God ore held state.

Human theist. Not objective...once our parents human were Satan angels first.

Subject objective human first. Word first human stated object.

Not a God to Satan angel if God.

Reasonable. Burning gas cooled sky has clouds. Cold clear night time gas has clouds. Seen.

Object cloud seen by human.

Human quantified holy statuses by observation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Tending to having the nature of active.

Notice Ive used again.

Meaning a subject. So it exists first. Reasoning its activity.

Humans subject activity is a human first is not a thesis first.

Subjective reasoning activity not human.

Man said I am a man.of God. Subject what is God to a man.

Subjective water oxygenated gods spirits reasoned as all other supportive gases are active also.

Subjective reasoning.

Objects are base components of their owned body subjected to thesis.

Satan ist. Men who listed thesis not objective or subjective.

Was abstract.

Abstract how to force change any God ore held state.

Human theist. Not objective...once our parents human were Satan angels first.

Subject objective human first. Word first human stated object.

Not a God to Satan angel if God.

Reasonable. Burning gas cooled sky has clouds. Cold clear night time gas has clouds. Seen.

Object cloud seen by human.

Human quantified holy statuses by observation.

More rambling nonsense and bad English

 

[rational experiences]

Y

More rambling nonsense and bad English

You quote ive a one process is used twice in explaining. To claim I know.

Creation is all base one formed in natural presence its explanation is its presence. Multi or everything one base one itself.

A destroyer mentality is science as a false add creator the cross + sacrificed life as you cannot add onto any naturally formed presence.

Being everything.

Why God was depicted as all things without argument.

And if I am represented by word details you are proven wrong. Your ego explanation as an equal human proves how you enjoy belittling anyone for any reason.

Science actually removed form.

Pretended the cross + to add was holy.

Falsely claiming numbers I use adding were within form. Yet thinking explains the add was involved with an already agree reason of separated form. To cause it.

In the conscious precept to conclude an outcome whilst thinking using symbolism.

Yet to be processed.

The word said I tried to add it into or about ion. Religion ion the determined science confession what went wrong.

Activity or active "the ion".

Religare religio to re bind.

Addition. Words became sciences confession.

Humans did not create or own the bindings so are not God the teaching. Relevance a human teaching as they changed God.

You cannot say don't change God unless you changed God.

Pretty basic word advice.

Basis one base form present is instant of any base one presence itself.

Science concluded mass allowed you to remove mass without changing mass. As one bases in mass as mass itself are multiple bodies of one base.

As the concept who uses words incorrectly in reality.

Science said I will remove form of God in mass but God will remain present. Yet he said all things are God.

In teaching that concept is determined lying. The contradiction of truth. Truth stated first.

A contradiction.

Science changed its teaching. Said one minute change caused a chain reaction as communication was present as creations language to its owned forms.

Why science changing one mass doubled the change to mass equally.

Teaching as above so below. Gases in heavens disappeared ignited as their heritage was out of stone. A known observed teaching.

Reason water held in stone to support cold gas evaporated. Doubling effect God earth released same equals radiation release to the formula of mass conversion.

The communicators released to substantiate communication as a process. As equals communication is fused and held communicating as fused and held.

The communications were released to equate equals answer.

Why the trinity was enforced in science by word of God equals equals equals.

Or....father the same as son the same as holy Ghost.

Without either the other would not exist.

Words own different meanings yet different balances equated mutual.

So science law of God said don't add on.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Accepting, for the sake of this discussion that the material world exists, has the physical properties and follows the laws of physics as has been observed repeatedly/consistently. Basically, the material world is not a simulation of some kind being run by a mega-computer or in God's mind.

Let say we have a computer that analyzes the mineral content and physical properties of a rock. It provides a precise list of every physical element that is part of the rock and measured physical properties. Is this list of information objective?

You can do experiments on the rock. Heat it, cool it, apply pressure to it. shoot it with gamma rays etc... and allow the computer to reanalyze the material content/physical properties of the rock under different conditions. Is this information all objective evidence?

If this is still subjective, what makes it subjective.

If you think the information is objective to this point, at what point in the process of science does this information become subjective?

All human perception is to a degree subjective. We can take steps to enhance our objectivity, but ultimately we remain subjective. Whether or not the wider universe exists in a strictly objective sense, that there is a fundamental underlying "objective" reality is an argument much fought over by philosophers and quantum mechanics. Post modernists argue that even if such "objective" reality exists, because of the inherently subjective nature of human experience, "objective" reality is unknowable, and that therefore the universe is subjective, for all practical intents and purposes.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans said science owns branches of good sciences discussing communal problems and evil branches. Science being its owned problem causer.

As basic advice without egotism speaking to egotism.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Humans said science owns branches of good sciences discussing communal problems and evil branches. Science being its owned problem causer.

As basic advice without egotism speaking to egotism.

...sure, why not?