We all have preconceptions based on either experience or beliefs or perception. The brain will try and make sense of what it sees by what it already identifies. Optical illusions take advantage of this.
As soon as you claim “scientific Method” you are setting parameters in terms of what data is or is not acceptable. If it isn’t tangible or measurable it isn’t valid.
Even if youhave never heard of the Bible (unlikely, maybe) the opening sentence “In the beginning God…” will trigger a response depending on your view of the existence of God. As soon as the concept of "holy " rears its head all logic goes out the window.
The tone of the writing will suggest a view, so that when someone claims it is not what it seems the natural reaction would be to reject it.
You see a shape in rocks and “fossil” springs to mind. An Amonite must be made of shell because that’s what modern molluscs are covered with. We reconstruct dinosaurs by referring to what we see know and as long as it looks right we congratulate ourselves and move to the next one. We have a working theory so as long as it seems to fit we don’t go looking for anything else.
Fiction will often try and confront protagonist with something completely alien or in a form never seen before, yet how alien .must it be? Made of an identifiable material? Without limbs? Without morals? ( by whose standard?). Possibly the most alien creature in Star Trek was the burrowing lump of rock.
Left field or lateral thinking is often frowned upon because we do not like our ideas to be disturbed or worse proven even partially wrong.
Is it possible to approach something without preconception or bias?
Is objectivity a pipedream?
The innocence of childhood is soon stripped away by experience. How do you see past experience?
It is certainly possible to approach subjects in ways other than science, which doesn’t help answer every question. It is only when people try to use science to bolster non empirical claims such as those to which the Bible applies that science seems to get in the way. But that isn’t really fair to blame an entire field because some people misappropriate it for their own purposes. The Bible doesn’t depend on science. It is an appeal to faith, not to anything that can be measured or verified in a laboratory. The solution isn’t to disparage or ignore science. We should just be more discerning in our expectations for its use and call out instances of misuse.
Interesting that you should automatically think o science?
Science may be objective but is it impartial?
Science assumes much:
that there is a tangible solution, answer or explanation
that it can see or identify this tangibility
Things that are beyond human perception such as radiation are identified by technology designed for the purpose but that word will ring alarm bells to at last one member of this forum
Clearly there are also those on this forum who disbelieve these results and claim them to be fantasy.
But the “impartial” scientist just uses the tools available confident in their abilities.
This question is not just about science. it is also about perception and problem solving, even cognition or belief.
A person claims a miracle that apparently defies normal logic or expectation. How you asses it will depend on your bias.
There are some who refuse to accept anything s being “magical” or breaking the natural laws.
There are some who would look for a rational or tangible explanation
There others who would just accept the Theistic understanding and not look for anything else.
None of the above have been impartial, even if there is objectivity involved.
Itis the impartiality more than the objectivity that interests me. Are there fences to sit on?
Or dividing knives that wound.
Impartial objectivity is a complex ideal that many strive for but often find challenging to fully achieve. The goal is to approach a situation or problem without personal bias, emotion, or subjective influence, which is a noble aspiration. In practice, however, complete impartiality can be difficult to attain because everyone has their own perspectives, experiences, and unconscious biases that shape their understanding.
Here are a few key points to consider:
Subjectivity in Observation: Our observations are always filtered through our senses and cognitive processes, which are inherently subjective. Even with the best intentions, our interpretations of data or events are influenced by our background and experiences.
Cognitive Biases: Humans are prone to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or anchoring bias, which can affect our ability to be fully objective. Recognizing and mitigating these biases is crucial but not always fully achievable.
Cultural and Social Influences: Our cultural and social contexts also shape our viewpoints and judgments. These influences can make it challenging to adopt a completely neutral stance.
Methods and Tools: While perfect objectivity may be elusive, using rigorous methods and tools—such as double-blind studies, peer reviews, and statistical analyses—can help minimize bias and improve the objectivity of conclusions.
Self-Awareness: Being aware of our own biases and actively working to counteract them can enhance our efforts toward impartiality. This involves critical self-reflection and openness to different perspectives.
In summary, while absolute impartial objectivity might be an ideal rather than a fully attainable state, striving for it can lead to more balanced and fair outcomes. The key is to be aware of the limitations and work continuously to minimize bias in our evaluations and decisions.
I would say rather, that science manages (from my vantage point here and now in the U.S.) to exhibit the least amount of confidence in its own (our own) impartiality as individuals or even as systems and collective appraisers. Call it a latent skepticism. It’s a humility that so much of religion (as perceived here and now, anyway), is failing to have - and we see conspiracy enthusiasts failing in this spectacularly, as they seem incapable of doubting themselves - but can only clear the easy and low bar of doubting everone and everything else - including the mountains of evidence against themselves they often even just leave entirely unaddressed.
So it isn’t that science or its practitioners and thinkers are necessarily impartial, but they just manage to be self-skeptical more than nearly everybody else - the classic case of them not needing to outrun the bear at all - they’ve just managed to outrun everyone else. And that relative success (of self-skepticism) and invitation of peer-review and criticism ironicaly then means it enjoys more success than anything else has in addressing the sorts of questions it has access to.
If you want to be most consistently misled and wrong about nearly everything - tune into the conspiracy corners of the web. You’d think they’d get tired of being wrong, and surely be angry about being lied to and played like sheep. But here’s the rub. You never hear the phrase “We were wrong” from those places. They only have one creedo they can follow - “the establishment is wrong, and we alone hold the key.” Self-skepticism is beyond them, and they only know how to double-down on whatever lies they promote. Any more, if you want to observe people who can change their minds, admit error (eventually), express regrets and acknowledge how easy it is for everyone of us to fool ourselves - to find that kind of activity you have to go to establishment science. A few religious people have it too, though they are not generally celebrated by their religious peers for having that capacity. Unsurprisingly, their ability to recognize and acknowledge error, partiality, and fallibility in themselves and their own tribes make them less vulnerable to falsehood than the more self-confident, conspiratorial-minded tribes.
I do not believe that fully impartial objectivity is possible for the reasons you listed - that was a fine list.
In science, it is easier to reach relative objectivity because the conclusions should be based on observable facts. If you are not objective, others can easily show the bias in interpretations. This makes science selfcorrecting, although there may be a time lag before the false conclusions are shown to be wrong.
In matters of faith, it is almost impossible to reach objective conclusions because there are very few observable facts that would be universally acknowledged. When we are talking about matters of faith, we rely heavily on what we have learned before. Although we may think we can be objective, our worldview, religious background and experiences color all our interpretations. Two believers can honestly disagree in matters of faith simply because the underlying assumptions and frameworks of interpretation are different. I do not believe that atheists are more objective - they have their own worldview and experiences that color the interpretations in matters of faith as strongly as in the case of believers.
I don’t want to come across as anti-scientist. The OP should be as impartial as the underlying question but is inevitably laced with my own skepticisms.
It’s not the scientists are arrogant or overconfident, but they havre to beleive in both their methodology and the tools involved.
If an experiemtn is faithfully duplicated and the results confirmed, does that prove the validity of the conclusions? or the experimant? Or does it prove that the experimanet will produce a predictable set of results? The answer will probably depend as much if not more on the natre of the eexperimant.
A ny eperiment must have parameters, but it may be less easy to deicide whther the results are governed by the parameters or the variables
In regard to my pet subject?
Te predictions are based on the theory and what it is tryng to prove. (Nested hierachy etc) but there is no (obious) consideration as to whether the same results might indicate another answer. I keep hearing “The reuslt are what we epect!” But you have already decided what the conclusion will be.
If you haven’t really considered an alternative how can you claim the results will be different?
IOW the work is focussed on proving the preconcieved theory. It is not impartial even if it is objective.
I guess the difference really is between those performing the research and those supporting the theory. Any skepticism in the work is lost from those procaliming the results. No matter how humble the researchers are, their work is venerated to almost godly proportions.
I don’t think it’s that other conclusions haven’t been considered. It’s that none of the others do as good a job explaining what we see as the currently reached conclusion has. To fall back on one that you and I and 99% of everybody here will agree on … do you really think that our conclusion that the earth isn’t flat is really only reached by people not considering the alternative flat-earth? Or is it rather that the acceptance of a flat-earth would raise (and un-answer) vastly more questions than it manages to answer? (…Which actually is … none since any problems that flat-earthism purports to ‘answer’, turn out to be chimeras that disappear once actually examined by knowledgeable people).
Wouldn’t you agree that round-earthism is just the more successful explanation for everything that depends on that knowledge? (which is … a lot!) And that success isn’t just a function of which worldview you happen to embrace. The more there is consilience with everything else that we all can observe, the more confidence we can finally grant to something as an established fact. The rejection of relative confidence-placing (or the attempted ‘equivalency’ of all proposals) is itself just another form of dogmatism. Just because we may think knowledge should be held tentatively, doesn’t mean that all knowledge and conjecture is equally tentative.
You are not comparing like to like. Although there are some flat earthers left their arguments are really laughable.
Forgive me but we are almost in the “either or” argument rather than the “incomplete” one. Theiestic evolution is hampered by the inabilbity to percieve or prove the hand of God.
My argument has always been that, Evolution is fine as far as it (should) go(es). The prcess does what it does, but many enthusisatic proponants claim it is the answer to all without really considering the “details”. And, no matter what you throw at them, they just pad it away with "There are millions of years to achieve this, which is both an exageration and an oversimplification. For a start the Cambrian explosion is not that big and the time since is finite. And the ongoing arguments about “impossible changes” or IR can never be fully resolved. The data just doesn’t exist. Even the so called transitory species do not fully bridge the gaps they just make some of the leaps a little shorter.
And as for “teaching Archaeopterix to fly” due to the complexity of the avian wing motion? (Ignoring the fact that the dynamics vary with wing size and shape) It is a nonstarter. There is no answer either way.although if the naswer amounts to innate or subconcious one would have to ask how that could be without a “programmer”.
At the end of the day it is still the dogmatism of the proponant (rather than the researcher) v the dogmatism of the opponnant (Me et al)
This reminds me of the example somebody here raised (I think it may have been @jpm or @T_aquaticus ) about the whodunnit mystery in which the butler was seen to have acquired the gun and to have entered the room where victim was murdered, but the defense in court insists that since nobody witnessed the butler getting from the kitchen to the library, there is too much unknown. Then when camera footage is brought to light that captures images of the butler sneaking past a doorway in between at the time in question, weapon in hand, the defense then insists that now there are now two gaps of ignorance instead of just one!
There is a multitude of data (observations) consistent with evolution, and that no other theory or dogma can come close to explaining like common ancestry does. So how much would be enough for you to finally concede that there is a satisfactory case?
You are still arguing “all or nothing”. I am not. So the question is irrelevant.The actual question is in wo parts: "How much is self determined? and “How much is guided or influenced?”
In what way am I doing this? I very much agree with you that this is not ‘all or nothing’ - in fact I think that I’m arguing against ‘all or nothing’ thinking too! There is a wide world of numbers between 0% and 100% - but in that wider world are still numbers like 1% and 99% or 20% and 80% - so it’s not all just 0%, 100%, or 50% either. We can actually have confidence about a lot of things even when it isn’t at 100% proven.
I’d say that there are some facts that are pretty much just determined. Now … as to which facts we take note of - what questions we ask or take interest in … yeah - the proportion of that which is “guided or influenced” will be a little higher.
None of us is a blank slate, really ever. There is no such thing as an objective experience or view. Even from birth infants understand the world as oriented to them. So, there is not even “innocence” (or objectivity) of childhood.
I think one of the most important aspects of maturity is learning to recognize this very thing, and understand how much it affects me, my perceptions and my understanding. Whoever that “me” is.
There is no “going back” because there is no “where” to go back to.
I think there is “going forward” to some degree, once a person recognizes the situation. It is possible to understand that we’re all in our individual, subjective, enculturated boats. If we do, we can learn to be more open to what other people are saying, thinking. There is a lot we can learn. But there’s a lot we find we can’t hang on to, when we recognize that impartial objectivity is a myth. Other things are a good deal easier to deal with.
Of course, I know science people likely will disagree with me on this, but I don’t really have science in mind, reading your OP.
[Edit: I will go back and read the rest of the thread, which I haven’t yet done. Maybe someone has already proven me wrong. : ) ]
The answer for most people, is most probably not.
Total freedom from bias requires a rather unusual intellectual detachment from our own experiences. If we manage to achieve that, all we are doing in reality is to quash the memories of those experience so not to interfere. And so we are sabotaging our own pretense at objectivity.
I price myself of being rational and emotionally stable, or so I believe … however I vaguely remember a time before age 10 when I was capable of “hearing” or perhaps “sensing”, other peoples thoughts rather accurately.
I successfully suppressed this by adopting other values or beliefs and labelled those experiences as a fabrication.
However, much later in life and after a few decades of marriage to my wife who is a doctor, she told me that in her experience, when a patient does not show up for some time, and she brings the matter up and thinks, Mr Smith hasn’t come to the practice for some time, I wonder how he is doing … invariable Mr Smith shows up in the next few days.
There are no rational explanations to this experiences and it is easy to dismiss them as delusions or fabrications. I could relate some personal experiences that are way less believable, but prefer not to.
In the light of this, I am in the “no” camp. Everything we accept as true and valid must pass through our own prism. If you add to that the fact that (as a defence mechanism) we only hear and see what we want to, discarding everything that does not concur with our personal array of values ( or anti-valures) clearly objectivity is a rare commodity.
You are enculturated in ways you don’t even notice. That you value what you call rationality the way you do is part if it. Add your own experiences that make your life different from your siblings’ even. Your own internal wiring.
You cannot step outside of yourself. You can broaden your horizon. Encountering many other deeply challenging, differently enculturated people helps. But it doesn’t make it possible for you to entirely leave some form of enculturation. There is no “outside” perspective one can achieve.
Interesting that what it seems we are calling impartial is related to humility: the ability to put self aside and be open to listening to others. And it difficult enough that we are told over and over in the Bible to cultivate it in our lives.
I remember a discussion (not here, but elsewhere) about one verse in the Gospel of John -
11:32 - And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
And 4 [!] people had a different interpretation of that one single statement of Jesus. All well versed people…
I once created a (yes or no) poll on 10 Biblical ever returning issues people kept talking and disagreeing about just to see how many people would agree on all 10. About 25-30 well versed people participated and only one pair gave the same 10 answers.
Objectivity is overrated, maybe even non-existent.
I am not certain whether you are trying to be antagonistic or not. Yes i mentioned science but i also mentioned Scripture and beleifs. @MarkD latched onto one of them, so that was interesting to me.