Scientific Objectivity at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Really good.

How's your break been?

It's been restful and very eventful. I think I enjoy it a lot and we had a lot of fun.

Tell me about the eventful part.

Uh, well, for the holidays we went to Washington to see my dad's family. We only get to see them— or we don't see them as much. Um, um, I've been training a little more than I usually do because— oh my bad— because, um, I have more time than I do with school, so I've been training in the mornings. Um, and yeah, good.

And is your dad's family in Washington, DC or Washington State?

Washington State.

Got it. What part?

Um, I think it's more east there in Spokane.

Got it. I've been to Spokane. Well, um, I was thinking it might be interesting to read about science. Are you okay reading about science this morning?

Of course.

Okay, I just dropped a paragraph in there. Um, you want to read it or should I read it?

I can read it. Go for it. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves are not or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias, or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry. A good reason for valuing scientific knowledge and the basis of the authority of science in society.

Thank you. To what extent does that paragraph make sense? Easy, hard, somewhere in between?

Well, I can read it, but I don't really understand what it means.

I thought there might be a few concepts in there that might be a little bit new, which is why we can figure it out together. Um, so let's go slowly. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. What do you think that sentence is saying?

Well, it's describing scientific objectivity, but in the first place, I'm not really sure what that is.

There we go. The good news is, I think the rest of the paragraph tries to explain that. So the way I think of it is you can kind of have this space in your mind where, what the heck is scientific objectivity? And then as we read the paragraph, hopefully it will fill in the blank. Does that make sense?

Yes.

So the next one, it expresses the idea, presumably the pronoun it refers to scientific objectivity. Makes sense? So this second sentence is trying to explain right away, it wants to be helpful. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves It's a long sentence. Are not or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias, or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. How you doing on that sentence?

I'm still a little confused, but I was thinking of scientific objectivity as sort of a single viewpoint. In of science overall, and I'm not sure.

Okay. Um, I wanna, I think it might be helpful to focus in on, um, are not and should not be. So let's just say we, in some ways, one of the challenges of this paragraph is I think it's very wordy. You're just piling lots of words on there. And so let's just say instead of the first Gobbledygook. So let's, let's just say science, um, should not be influenced by particular perspectives. Let's just start with that. Do you think that science should not be influenced by particular perspectives, or what does it mean for science? What would it mean for science to be influenced by particular perspectives?

I feel like that would mean if we already have a certain view of science and how the world works and stuff, and then We're just kind of fixed on that. And then if we discovered something new, we're not open. I feel like that would be with a certain viewpoint, maybe.

Okay. I'll call that an interpretive hypothesis. So you kind of have a guess as to what that might mean. Let's go to the next one. Value judgments. Science should not be influenced by value judgments. What do you think that means?

When I think about value judgments, I— the first thing that pops up, that pops into my head, are morals and stuff. So maybe not influenced by that stuff, but I'm not sure.

Does, does that make sense to you, that science should not be influenced by moral judgments? Or do you think it should be influenced by moral judgments?

Well, I mean, if— I think it depends on what the science— I mean, is. Maybe that's not the best example, but I mean, if you're experimenting with something in science and it's dangerous, you should use moral values to decide things. But I feel like I don't know enough about that stuff to say that.

Okay, so it's possible you might think there are times when science should be influenced by value judgments. Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Okay, then let's go to the next one. Community bias. Um, science should not be influenced by community bias. What might that mean?

Well, a community of scientists, or maybe just a community of other people who have influence on that, on the science and on scientists. Be politicians. Um, and I— go ahead. I mean, I was thinking that that makes sense because it's eventually up to the scientists to do science.

So it makes sense because you're saying— let's take politicians. You're saying if it— science should not be influenced by community bias. You're thinking if, if the community bias is politicians, then it makes sense because they should not be influencing the science. Is that what you're saying?

That's what I thought at first, yes.

Are there other communities that could bias science one way or another?

Other knowledgeable people? I'm not sure.

Okay. What would it mean to bias science?

I think, well, to bias— well, the word bias, I feel like, is just having a certain opinion and feeling for something and not— it's not respecting. I mean, um, not being open to the other. I guess if my brother was in a match with some other kid, I'd obviously buy it— be biased for my brother because he's my brother. Mm-hmm. That's how I look at it. So I think maybe you could use bias for different experiments, or maybe if you made a certain breakthrough, then who would get to share it first, or how it would be shared. I'm not sure.

Okay. It's okay. We've got a bunch of interpretive biases— not interpretive biases, interpretive hypotheses about what each of these pieces might mean. And what I'm thinking is, as we go through this, then we'll go back and try to make sense of the whole thing. But we've got another one. Science should not be influenced by personal interests. What do you think that means?

Well, personal interests, maybe if you had a certain goal, or maybe a certain goal that not everybody agreed with, then you should just focus on the science and the good of everybody else instead of your personal interests.

Does that make sense to you?

In certain cases, I think, I think it does overall though.

Okay, let's— and then, and then the last clause is to name a few other relevant— to name a few relevant factors. So that's not really adding anything. So let's go back and see if we can pull this all together. They're saying science should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias, or personal interests. Does that make sense as a whole? Do those four different things— particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias, or personal interests— does it make sense that science should not be influenced by those kinds of things?

I think now it does more so.

Why so? Why does it make more sense now?

Well, I mean, now that I worked through it and thought about what they mean and how they might be connected to science.

Well, except I'm confused because you said maybe they— if value judgments mean moral judgments, you said that science should be influenced by moral judgments. Am I wrong, or did I misremember you, or have you changed your mind?

You didn't misremember me, but I thought— I didn't think that that would be used all of the time. I thought that maybe in certain cases they shouldn't be, and other cases they should, but I'm not completely sure what those cases are.

Okay. And yeah, there are lots of cases. I understand in real time it's hard to figure out all of the implications of this. So why do you think it's important that science not be influenced by these various things? Why, why would somebody care if science was, was or was not influenced by these various things?

Well, they could interrupt the scientific process, or maybe they could just distract or modify what the science is, what the scientist is doing. Something like that.

So when you say modify or interrupt or distract or whatever, it sounds as if you have a mental model of science as something that is somehow different from all these influences. Is that accurate? So what do you— how can you describe the part that is science that might be, call it, disrupted by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias, or personal interests?

Well, originally, when I hear you say scientist, I picture someone doing an experiment or working on something in my head. And I know that there are different types of scientists, but that's what I think of just automatically. And then when I matched that with the value judgments, community bias, personal interests, then I guess I could picture in my head things leading that scientist from doing what he's doing and focus on the science to doing something else to favor somebody, to favor himself, or I don't know, to match those.

Got it. Um, let's go back to the first sentence then. Science— because first sentence, scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves are not or should not be influenced by blah, blah, blah. Does the concept of scientific objectivity make a little bit more sense now?

A little bit.

So, so it's— do you have something or should I help a little bit?

I don't have anything.

So you have this mental image. I mean, the way you're talking, it almost sounds like there's a scientist in her lab working on the experiment, and she should not be distracted by this community bias or that personal interest or things. She just needs to focus on the science and the experiment. Am I accurately reflecting what you were thinking?

Yes.

Is it just because she's got to get the experiment done or because or something else? Why, why should she not be distracted by these other things while doing science?

I mean, it could be for the good of society, or it could be just a breakthrough that would help overall. If I feel like that could be pushed over the trail that she's on, that the scientist is on, um, Other than that, though, I can't really think of anything else.

So when you say for the good of society, I'm going to dig more deeply into that. But before I do, I'm going to go to the last sentence where it says objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge and the basis of the authority of science in society. Do you think when you're talking about for the good of science should not be biased or influenced or distracted or whatever for the good of society. Is that similar to what they're saying here?

I think so. I mean, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge. I mean, scientific knowledge wouldn't really do you any good if it was false, would it?

So this is interesting. This is the first time you've used the word false. So, um, say more about what the relationship is between these biases and science being false.

Well, I mean, I don't really know any cases of science being false besides way back when, but, um, I mean, if the scientist or science was quote unquote distracted and misled by these things that they list, then it could eventually lead to it to be false. It could be so misled and things like that. That's, I think, what I was trying to—

Okay, so this is helpful because my first mental model was, hey, the scientist is in her lab doing the experiment. Don't distract me, I gotta get the experiment done, you know. Um, but now I'm hearing a different thing, and maybe this is what you originally meant. Now I'm hearing the scientist is in her laboratory doing the experiment, and if she has people saying, hey, do it this way, hey, do it that way, hey, think of it this way, she could come up with false results, in which case science is no longer valuable to society. Is that an accurate reflection of what you're thinking?

I think so.

Okay. Um, So let's read the whole paragraph and see how it lands now. I'll read it so you can kind of think about it. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias, or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society. Does the paragraph as a whole make a little bit more sense now?

I think so.

What would you— how would you describe scientific objectivity at present? If somebody asked you, what's scientific objectivity?

Oh gosh, um, I think science objectivity is— I mean, I guess I'm gonna kind of quote from the paragraph, um, a reason for valuing scientific or science and scientific things and For the good of society? I'm not quite sure.

Okay, no problem. But I guess the question is, yeah, well, maybe let's look into objectivity. Have you ever heard the word objectivity before?

No.

How about the word object?

I've heard the word object before.

What is an object?

To me, I mean, an object is—

I can't hear you.

When you say object, I think of like a block or a book. It's a thing that I can hold. Okay.

And how about subject? What does it mean to be a subject?

I think a subject, or when you think of subject, or when you say subject, I think of a school subject, just something. That has maybe multiple branches. I, I associate it to learning because of school subjects, things like math and reading and writing.

And that is a very common use, probably the most common use of the word subject you've had, you've experienced. Um, have you ever heard of the, um, expression subjective experience?

I think I've heard it before, but I don't know what it means.

How about a subject in a story?

I think when you say subject, it's like maybe a certain part in the story or a certain character and the branches that sort of go off from that.

Okay. A common— this is helpful. So a common way to think of subject-object sometimes is that objects are things in the world and subjects, I think character is a good version so that, you know, if there was a story about Alana, you would be the kind of subject of the story. It's about you. I'm forgetting your character's name. What's her name? Your famous character. Abigail, right? She's the subject of those stories. Um, and so subject has to do with, in this sense, subject has to do with kind of who we are internally and object is out there in the world. Um, and so subjective experience is our experience inside as opposed to objective experience is what you see outside. Does that make sense as a distinction between we've got a world inside ourselves and then we also see a world outside of ourselves?

When you mean inside of ourselves, do you— or when you say that, do you mean that person? So me or you, or—

yeah, every— all of us are all beings, at least have— there's something that happens in Alana's mind, there's something that happens in Michael's mind, something that happens in Ryan's mind. Everybody has a subjective experience that is their own internal experience. And what's happening inside you is not necessarily you know, all of the objects. You have thoughts and feelings that are different from the stuff around you. Make sense?

Yes.

So in that sense, um, often the word objectivity is used to focus on those things outside of us. Um, and subjectivity is those things inside of us. And so one way to think about this is that science should only be influenced by the things we see. And do, and not internal value judgments, community bias, personal interests, that sort of thing. Does it make sense?

Yes, it does.

So in which case, do you see why science should not be biased by our internal interests or preferences or bias or anything like that?

I think so. I think what I'm saying is that the more important thing is the science in front of you and not all those other things. Is that what you mean? Yeah.

Um, and then going back to your notion that at least potentially, and it's really interesting to look at both the history of science and present science to learn about this, potentially being biased by one's own feelings or, uh, whatever could lead— you're the one who brought up it could lead to false pieces of science that are false. Do you know of any historical cases where a bias led to pieces of science being false?

I know there was an instance where they were studying the solar system and they thought that everything was revolving around the Earth. I can't name anybody, but I know that happened.

Okay. No, it's really interesting to think that maybe sometimes we human beings have some kind of bias that distorts how we see science or how we evaluate evidence or even how we do experiments. Does that seem plausible, that if we're biased in some sense, that can distort how we go about doing science?

Yes.

In which case, it's scientific objectivity that is looking at things as an object and, and not being influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments. Community bias and personal interests. Do you see why we might think that scientific objectivity is valuable?

Yes.

And so now, how would you describe what scientific objectivity is?

I think scientific objectivity is how we should focus on science, focusing on the science itself and not other things that might— I'm going to use the word again— disrupt the process.

Do you think it's an easy thing to do to just focus on the science itself and not focus on these other things, or is it sometimes difficult?

I think it would be difficult because there are so many other influences.

Got it. Well, that's a long, interesting issue on its own, which we won't have time to get to. Uh, but yeah, I think this is a really interesting set of issues, and as you get older and learn more about science, uh, And I would say the pursuit of truth. Then going back to your comment that we don't, I think we want more truth and less falsity. Fair enough?

Yes.

And so, and science in general, I think, well, when it says a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge and the basis of the authority of science in society, if science is true, then it's a lot more valuable than if it's false. Correct?

Yes.

Whereas if there are all these biases happening, and the biases somehow, somehow introduce little, little bits, or maybe bigger bits of falsity, then science would be way less valuable. Correct?

Yes.

So I see this, the value of scientific objectivity, as a way of talking about the value of truth in science. And I think mostly we think of science as true, But there are tricky places, like you're talking about the old Copernican hypothesis, or the Ptolemaic hypothesis of the sun went around the Earth. We know in the past sometimes scientific beliefs have not been accurate. So if we value the truth, we need to figure out a way to get accurate science, correct?

Yeah.

Okay. Again, really big complex topic, so we're not going to figure it out all today. But I thought it was worth thinking about it for a bit. So I'm going to thank you and wish you a great return to school tomorrow. And good to see you again. Thank you.

Good to see you again too, Michael.

Bye-bye.