Science based on a paradox?

[raw_thought]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

[thedoc]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

First you must define "objective' and it seems that according to you it means to be on the outside looking in. This is a questionable proposal.

I would submit that "objective", in this case, simply means to be based on evidence, and there is no reason to think that evidence could not be gathered from within.

[hammock]

1. One must be objective. 2. Nothing is outside nature. If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

"Mind-independence" is freedom from me, not necessarily from any universals which perception and intellect in general might conform to. The objectivity of the extrospective environment is that about it which outruns personal preferences and desires, and that about it which is accessible or verifiable to many conscious observers (public). For instance, you or I can't control the weather by will alone; nature's governance is at least something other than the power of mind instantiated as a single, empirical brain. An objective world can be regarded an inter-subjective reality, rather reference to a otherwise invisible or a metaphysical existence historically championed by reason or assorted strains of rationalism. [What assorted positivist schools considered potential gibberish or transcendent speculations hopelessly avoiding confirmation or culling.]

Huxley, like all the other scientists in the group--and like almost all scientists in Europe or America at the that time--was not a [traditional] materialist, despite his belief in the progress of mechanistic physiology. He argued in two directions: one from the external phenomena of science (say, the data of physiology) and the other from introspective phenomena (for example, our belief in free will). He was inclined to believe that most (or all) introspectively revealed phenomena would prove to be caused by externally revealed ones. But in any event he was a phenomenalist, arguing that what is real is phenomena. If the soul (or the unconscious) is not real, it is because it is not part of the phenomenal world.

This panphenomenalism was widely labeled positivism when it was propounded by scientists. In the loosely defined meandering of the term, positivism dominated the European intellectual scene from approximately 1870 to 1890. . . .

Matter for Huxley was just what it was for Mach or Hertz: a set of phenomenal observations made by scientists. It is thus remarkable but true that the most reviled "materialists" of the 1880s--Huxley, Tyndall, and Clifford--were all phenomenalists of sort or another and not [traditional] materialists at all.

The positivist impulse gave new life to a variety of panphenomenalism, one whose adherents were surprisingly uncritical about the analysis of those allegedly basic mental phenomena, sensations. Thus, thinkers as different in outlook and interests as Huxley and Mach, Taine and Spencer, Wundt and Lewes all agreed that the basic "data" on which all science was to built were sensations. [From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin; p.161 by Edward S. Reed (1997)]

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

You can't. People claiming to be objective, rarely are. Mostly they are fooling themselves.
However, when you place the "object" between two other perspectives then the relationship can reveal a truth.
When you see 'objectivity' as a relational perspective then it is useful. When you pretend it is absolute then you start to make mistakes. Formulating a relation means defining the parameters. When you want to know how long is a piece string - make a ruler.

5 people taste the same lemon. 2 say it is very sharp, 1 says it is average, and the other 2 say the lemon is less than average.

Who is right?

A scientist come along and put the lemon into a sharpness testing machine, and declares that the lemon has a sharpness of 134.453

Tell me where objectivity lies?? As long as every one agree on the divisions of the ruler, then you can call the measurement objective. What you have is an intersubjective truth, which applies within your language community

[David Handeye]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

Logically, this is a syllogism:
1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
3. Objectivity must be inside nature.

No paradox.

[surreptitious57]

If nothing exists outside of nature then it cannot be investigated. One should however test the hypothesis
that nothing exists outside of it because assumptions with no evidence to substantiate them are unscientific
by default. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified then it is unscientific as well even if its premise is actually true

As far as objectivity is concerned human beings are not absolutely so for they are emotional beings just as much
as logical ones. So the scientific method which is a methodology designed by human beings for investigating natural
phenomena is not perfect. However it is none the less the most reliable means of testing the validity of any hypothesis

[duszek]

Would relative objectivity help ?

You can be a third party or an arbiter in certains areas but not in those in which you are personally involved and thus cannot make impartial judgements.

As the example with a lemon goes you can take some objective chemical standard of acidity.
There is such a standard for chili, they measure capsaicin to tell how hot it is.
Some people can bear more of it and some less, depending if they are used to it, but the amount of capsaicin can be objecitvely measured.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

Logically, this is a syllogism:
1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
3. Objectivity must be inside nature.

No paradox.

But it assumes objectivity is not nothing.

[David Handeye]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

Logically, this is a syllogism:
1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
3. Objectivity must be inside nature.

No paradox.

But it assumes objectivity is not nothing.

It assumes that one MUST be objective, necessarily.
NOTHING is outside nature.
So, you must be objective necessarily inside nature. Objectivity must be part of nature, else you couldn't be objective.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Logically, this is a syllogism:
1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
3. Objectivity must be inside nature.

No paradox.

But it assumes objectivity is not nothing.

It assumes that one MUST be objective, necessarily.
NOTHING is outside nature.
So, you must be objective necessarily inside nature. Objectivity must be part of nature, else you couldn't be objective.

1) is a false demand.
3) is a non sequitur.

[duszek]

Objectivity could be a useful illusion and a useful concept.

It could be a reminder that a scientist should try to switch off personal preferences and prejudices and impressions.

[raw_thought]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

Logically, this is a syllogism:
1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
3. Objectivity must be inside nature.

No paradox.

So you are saying that all knowledge is inside (subjective) nature?
I agree. All knowledge is based in qualia.
Nagel, wrote a great book ( The view from nowhere) that explores this idea in depth.

[Blaggard]

0. hypothesis
1. can you prove it
2. if not return to 0
3. if you can prove it, can it be subjectively repeated by peers, in order to provide some sort of objectivity by repetition.
4 if not return to 0
5 You have proven it to people by replication and peer review.
6. tentative theory at best
7. return to 0 anyway, just to clear up the mistakes, couldn't hurt.

I am not sure why this is a bad thing.

Science is not even remotely in the practice of claiming any sort of true or truth. But one thing it is open to is being wrong, the same cannot be said of other spheres of thought. Not sure why people have such a problem with that other than in the fact that all scientists are fickle and biased and human. Hence scientific method.

Nothing is outside the nature of the being that makes a supposition, proof or evidential concern, is all as others have said you can know.

Objectivity could be a useful illusion and a useful concept.

It could be a reminder that a scientist should try to switch off personal preferences and prejudices and impressions.

And how would that be possible? True as it is?

I think the best you can do in science is create a framework whereby all those things can be iteratively ruled out. I think that is all you can do, I think hence to expect more is naïve.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
If nothing is outside of nature, how can one look at it from outside of it (objectively )?

Logically, this is a syllogism:
1. One must be objective.
2. Nothing is outside nature.
3. Objectivity must be inside nature.

No paradox.

So you are saying that all knowledge is inside (subjective) nature?
I agree. All knowledge is based in qualia.
Nagel, wrote a great book ( The view from nowhere) that explores this idea in depth.

You are misusing the idea of the qualium. The point about knowedge is that it can be shared, and perfectly understood by others. WIth qualia, we can never know if our experience is the same. Quite different ideas.

For example. The earth revolves around the sun. This is knowledge and can be expressed in an "objective" way. From the POV of an earthman the sun goes round the earth - that is subjective.
Now, the big question is, to what extent is the first statement objective, and could it have a subjective quality.

It usually occurs that when a collection of objective facts are brought together, that very act of collection has to be selective, and therefore, as a group of facts, the things they are designed to prove tend towards subjectivity.

Example. Dick Cheney offers a collection of facts about Iran. He says that it is an objective fact that: they abuse women, imprison without due process; have a nuclear program; are spying on Isreal; don't think Israel out to exist; etc...
Given together these truth objective facts can point to am undeniable argument that the USA has an "objective" duty to attack Iran.

When we ignore the fact of International law, that Iran has the right to do all that. And ignore the fact that Cheney is motivated by making $billions from the sale of arms and equipment to the US government, this put a different complexion on his statements.

Where is bias? There is no impartiality. No court has it. Ultimately there is not position from which a person can stand that gives them a perfectly objective position.
No fact, even one that is completely true can never be without a reason for appearing at a particular point, and so each fact is value laden by its context.

[Hobbes' Choice]

0. hypothesis
1. can you prove it
2. if not return to 0
3. if you can prove it, can it be subjectively repeated by peers, in order to provide some sort of objectivity by repetition.
4 if not return to 0
5 You have proven it to people by replication and peer review.
6. tentative theory at best
7. return to 0 anyway, just to clear up the mistakes, couldn't hurt.

I am not sure why this is a bad thing.

Science is not even remotely in the practice of claiming any sort of true or truth. But one thing it is open to is being wrong, the same cannot be said of other spheres of thought. Not sure why people have such a problem with that other than in the fact that all scientists are fickle and biased and human. Hence scientific method.

Nothing is outside the nature of the being that makes a supposition, proof or evidential concern, is all as others have said you can know.

Objectivity could be a useful illusion and a useful concept.

It could be a reminder that a scientist should try to switch off personal preferences and prejudices and impressions.

And how would that be possible? True as it is?

I think the best you can do in science is create a framework whereby all those things can be iteratively ruled out. I think that is all you can do, I think hence to expect more is naïve.

I think what duszek is saying is a vital aspiration for all scientists to have. And that is why we have peer review, which can uncover a failure of this kind.
What we can never do is remove the interests (financial and prestigious), that gathered to bring the study or research into being.