Subjective Science Ain’t Science
November 21st 2008 06:43
Subjective Science Ain’t Science
When a religion is infected with a series of deliberate errors and lies from an internal source those errors are often referred to as heresies. When Information Technology is infected with the same style of misinformation it often called marketing. When the used car business is infected with it is called business as usual. Politics? When politics is infected with honesty it is called a short career. When science lessons are filled with errors then it only contains less science.
You may find it odd that there are people who claim to love science fail to even understand the basic precepts and principles of science. I have ceased wondering about that years ago. Science is a word that attracts because of its meaning. For many the word science is synonymous with truth. For some the word ‘Science’ is the trump card in any argument. ‘Science proves it and that make me right, ha ha ha!’ The problem is that words in themselves have little meaning once compulsive semantics is applied. Love can mean sex, hate can mean not so loved, science can mean anything and everything that you wish to call science. Scientology, Christian Science, The Science of Anti Aging, The science of attracting hot women, Numerology, Biorythms and many other all claim to be science based. Even the old snake oil traveling side show was touted as the new wonder science. Subjectively anything and everything is science but objectively this is completely different matter.
Subjectively snake oil always works, but objectively it is still snake oil. The difference is one of objective evidence.
Why is objectivity so crucial to science? Because without objectivity we are left with nothing more than conjecture and opinion. Science is basically the process of reaching an objective answer to a question.
What is the atmosphere on the moon?
Get this wrong and you will make a terrible mistake.
‘Observation, theory and comparison’ is a cycle of deductive reasoning designed to determine a definitive answer. Lose any component in this cycle and you will cease to be engaging in science.
Imagine observing something once and creating a theory to explain that event. Without some comparison with verifiable data the theory is untested and no more valid than a rival theory. The explanation remains unresolved. Imaging seeing a remarkable event and recorded the phenomena repeatedly but no one bothers to formulate a theory to explain it. This also leaves the matter unresolved. Imagine formulating a theory without an observation. Here we have pure speculation which is not evidence.
Why does a chemist calibrate the scales? Why is test equipment regularly checked and serviced? Why are observations recorded and repeated? Why do need to repeat experiments? Why does peer review exist? All these have one purpose and that is to remove the bias and prejudice of the experimenter from the testing process. A subjective observation is at best anecdotal but at worst false data. Objectivity is the key and without it all test results are skewed, biased, prejudiced and often useless.
There is only one kind of science and that is science based upon objectivity.
People who reject ‘Objective Science’ automatically embrace ‘Subjective Science’. There is no middle ground between objective and subject. To pretend that there is puerile semantics.
If it does not have objectivity as its keystone then it is not any kind of science that I would recognize.
Yet it does look remarkably like snake oil.
This is called a multimeter. It is designed to take objective readings. I wonder why no makes subjective multimeters.
When a religion is infected with a series of deliberate errors and lies from an internal source those errors are often referred to as heresies. When Information Technology is infected with the same style of misinformation it often called marketing. When the used car business is infected with it is called business as usual. Politics? When politics is infected with honesty it is called a short career. When science lessons are filled with errors then it only contains less science.
We call this a CRO. It takes objective measurements. Subjective CRO's are useless.
You may find it odd that there are people who claim to love science fail to even understand the basic precepts and principles of science. I have ceased wondering about that years ago. Science is a word that attracts because of its meaning. For many the word science is synonymous with truth. For some the word ‘Science’ is the trump card in any argument. ‘Science proves it and that make me right, ha ha ha!’ The problem is that words in themselves have little meaning once compulsive semantics is applied. Love can mean sex, hate can mean not so loved, science can mean anything and everything that you wish to call science. Scientology, Christian Science, The Science of Anti Aging, The science of attracting hot women, Numerology, Biorythms and many other all claim to be science based. Even the old snake oil traveling side show was touted as the new wonder science. Subjectively anything and everything is science but objectively this is completely different matter.
This is called Ohm's Law. Objective Science. Better hide the children.
Subjectively snake oil always works, but objectively it is still snake oil. The difference is one of objective evidence.
Why is objectivity so crucial to science? Because without objectivity we are left with nothing more than conjecture and opinion. Science is basically the process of reaching an objective answer to a question.
What is the atmosphere on the moon?
Get this wrong and you will make a terrible mistake.
‘Observation, theory and comparison’ is a cycle of deductive reasoning designed to determine a definitive answer. Lose any component in this cycle and you will cease to be engaging in science.
Imagine observing something once and creating a theory to explain that event. Without some comparison with verifiable data the theory is untested and no more valid than a rival theory. The explanation remains unresolved. Imaging seeing a remarkable event and recorded the phenomena repeatedly but no one bothers to formulate a theory to explain it. This also leaves the matter unresolved. Imagine formulating a theory without an observation. Here we have pure speculation which is not evidence.
Bubbles do not lie.
Why does a chemist calibrate the scales? Why is test equipment regularly checked and serviced? Why are observations recorded and repeated? Why do need to repeat experiments? Why does peer review exist? All these have one purpose and that is to remove the bias and prejudice of the experimenter from the testing process. A subjective observation is at best anecdotal but at worst false data. Objectivity is the key and without it all test results are skewed, biased, prejudiced and often useless.
There is only one kind of science and that is science based upon objectivity.
People who reject ‘Objective Science’ automatically embrace ‘Subjective Science’. There is no middle ground between objective and subject. To pretend that there is puerile semantics.
If it does not have objectivity as its keystone then it is not any kind of science that I would recognize.
Yet it does look remarkably like snake oil.
This snake oil. The product of subjective science.
| 112 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
however, it also raises the inevitable question regarding the scientist/researcher and his/her objectivity.
Data can be skewed, like statistics, to come to different conclusions, by omission and/or emphasis being placed on different parts of the collected data and, of course, how a subject is approached, what is taken for case study etc.
I have something in mind of course, that being Dr. Holt's wave therapy, and how after decades of refusing to look into the matter seriously, the Federal Government and the AMA were forced, by a TV public affairs programme, to re-exammine his machine and its efficacy in the treatment of cancer.
Dr.Holt, (once again) warned them that certain cancers could not be cured using his machine, (he had shown files of 300 plus people, all of whom had been sent home to die, after conventional treatments failed, whom he subsequently cured after treating them).
And so, the AMA went away and exammined the data, then picked one of the cancers that he had said he could not treat, to prove it did not warrant their approval.
Dr.Holt was a highly regarded eminent surgeon, who had five medical degrees, and many decades of practise, yet, because he had not followed their so-called objective case study formula over a decade or so they rejected the so-called claims of cure as mere unsubstantiated hearsay.
The real reason the AMA chose to take such a prejudiced view, flying in the face of such first class positive evidence remains unclear, however, some suggest, perhaps churlishly, the huge global drug companies turned a few screws, as the machine was going to rob them of a lot of business.
My exhaustive preamble to my point being, while we allow companies to do the safety and efficacy research themselves, to fund what governments should be doing themsleves in an objective manner, we cannot feel completely safe in the notion, that commercially funded research is totally and fearlessly objective.
Nay, there is far too much evidence pointing to the converse of objectivity on their part and I put thalidomide on the table as a case in point, and many psychiatric drugs and anti-cancer drugs since then, which have had to be withdrawn because of deleterious side effects.
Motivations of profit will always kill objective research quicker than anything else it would seem.
cheers
fog
P.S. Some say, multinational drug companies have become the modern day equivalent of the biased Middle Ages religious institutions, replete with their 'high priests', the so-called objective research scientists, who depend on them to fund their own labs and independant research, by ignoring certain negative data. Think of GM food development...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I will try to be brief so I don't cause too much detail to what I see as being very simple.
People can be remarkably disciplined and objective in one area and suddenly subjective when it suits them. Drug companies need to understand hard science to make the drugs and pass the testing phase. Yet when it comes to turning profit they engage in every emotional trick that they can think of.
In politics we can find a person touting their qualifications where they do not belong. A doctor may use his title to argue the case for a new nightclub. He may be a doctor but he is not specialized in nightclubs what does it matter?
I enjoy science but I know enough to know that in it evidence is god.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
You could make a fortune. Just programme 2 plus 2 = 5 into a computer, develop some new software like MOPB for the subjective.
Comment by CarlCan
Astroearth
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I could make even more money if those same computers would operate with out binary.
It is funny how binary equations simplify so much.
zero plus zero still equals zero.
Zero plus one still equals one.
bin 10000000 still equals 128.
bin 01000000 still equals 64.
If only I could find a state between something and nothing then I would rich. Unless the same logic is applied to my wages.
CarlCan
Thanks for your comments.
Old Julius Sumner Miller is a legend.
Cranky old man who did not take crap from his students.
"What do you you do if you do not know something?"
"Look it up!"
I used to think he was just some manic angry man on television but as I get older I can see why he was so frustrated. Given the choice between comfortable lies and harsh truths: Many people will book a cabin on the Titanic before they count the life boats.
"Why is it so?" Is the most important question asked.
Comment by Dody Bush
Internet Business Opportunities
A Geek
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Psychology is not the same as Psychiatry.
There are plenty of schools of psychology that have been discredited when the blowtorch of objectivity is applied. Remember the fad of repressed memories just a few years ago. Many of those ended with malpractice suits.
Psychiatry is constantly subjected to medical standards of practice and review. Psychiatry can also include medicines and surgery. Both of which should be always be assessed from an objective testing regime. There several examples of what happen when subjective reasoning dominates. We end up with Lobotomies being perform with no clinical benefit.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Doesnt Pi come pretty close to explaining one area of that space, fluctuating as it does from one figure to another, not even objective to itself?
Lilla ...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I did try to put in a subjective tax return once and guess what happened?
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The shortfall was sorted out in the next return.
I blame my accountant.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I just checked my last comment and the first part was missing, now it makes sense?
I also remember what I wanted to say is that todays scientists seem to me to say whatever the person paying the pay check wants them to say. One only has to read Scientific American to realise this fact
Lilla ...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I do understand where you are coming from.
I still hold a lot of respect Scientific American because it is still a place where scientists publish papers. They have gone a bit low brow, commercial and tacky of late. However they do allow for disagreement of opinion. Any way I do try to skip their editorials.
My problem is that we do have a new class of cashed up science tampering for commercial gain. The tobacco industry sponsoring studies with questionable methods etc. People will sell out in any profession.
However science does not belong to scientists alone.
When the evidence is examined objectively, and usually it is then the truth come out.
Did this event occur, when did it occur and why is it so?
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I agree, I swapped to New Scientist for a while as I found it *fresher,* before that I had a run with Omni (which used to be good too)... but they have all changed and these days i get most of my info online from as many independant sources as possible, its cheaper too, which helps pay the internet bills *slapping my forehead at that irony ...* but what always amazes me is the advanced state of Russias scientists and their advances there. Incredible on all fronts, they are just so far ahead of the West in so many ways.
..albeit about the only mag I will buy is Nexxus and that is on and off. I wrote for a mag called Hard Evidence a few times, which was a lot of fun as I had no party lines to tote or agendas to adhere to, other than the truth for its own sake. But sadly, its gone now by the way of the dinosaur. They are fun as they trail the front line with the cold facts, not the fabricated ones some of the others lean to.
I may write a few things for Nexxus instead?
Lilla ...
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
*shiver* I cant get past that movie the Constant Gardener.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I am not familiar with Hard Evidence mag. Yet I do hope the writing experience was enjoyable.
Truth?
Now where did that word go?
Oh well, it may come back one day.