What does it mean to be objective? Can true objectivity exist or is subjectivity an inescapable human condition? Is objective science really more advantageous than subjective science or is there an alternate method of observation that could be used? The answers to these questions lie in the discussion of the differences and benefits of both objectivity and subjectivity in the scientific domain.
By definition objectivity is the custom of observing various phenomena without projecting one’s own experiences and ideals upon it. It is a difficult practice indeed considering the majority, if not all of mankind, is driven by something Carl Jung calls the ego, one’s conscious experience of oneself; because of this it is extremely difficult for individuals to see the world through objective eyes. In fact, some people would argue that true objectivity doesn’t exist solely because of this egocentric filter between ourselves and the world. It is impossible for an individual to see entirely objectively because our lives -our identities- are an amalgamation of everything we’ve ever witnessed, heard, and experienced. Hindus often refer to this idea as “The Self Image”, believing we are defined by our experiences. This lack of objectivity poses a problem, especially when discussing theoretical views in the realm of science, an epistemological practice that most people believe to be objective throughout. For better or for worse, this isn’t the case. Yes, science is based in facts. However, said facts aren’t necessarily 100% true on all accounts; nor are they completely objective like most believe. The observations and experiments that lead to these facts are the denizens of an extremely fragile structure that, given the proper leverage, could collapse at any given moment. A contributing factor to this fragility is the structure’s foundation, which is comprised of several complications that arise when trying to identify the truth behind objective science and whether or not it is better than science that utilizes subjectivity.
The first drawback when looking at scientific objectivity is the way individuals perceive various experimentation. There always exists a “filtered-analysis” that occurs when multiple individuals witness the same event, or a subjective analysis. As I mentioned earlier, it is exceedingly difficult for a person to observe objectively; instinctively, this is usually the order of operations in which individuals perceive and process information: the event is observed, then each individual subconsciously exploits their personal experiences and interpretations to formulate an outcome or hypothesis, the likes of which are not always the same. From the get go objective science has lost to an innate subjectivity that rules over all. But for the sake of argument, let’s elaborate further.
Let us say that two individuals observe the same phenomena, but end up witnessing completely different events. How can we decide which observation is the most trustworthy or objective when we are relying solely on the sense-perception of just these two individuals? The answer is simple. We can’t, at least not with 100% certainty or accuracy, not with only two parties participating in said experiment. With only two parties involved, there is a 50% chance of the chosen outcome being the most reliable one if we make a decision based on these two views alone. Those might seem like good odds for a casino game, but when trying to rationalize a scientific theory we tend to require something a little more concrete. So how would one go about solving a problem such as this? You must raise the number of people participating.
By expanding an observation group from two individuals to say, twelve or thirteen, the chances of coming up with a more factual outcome are multiplied by 6, but the possibility of the observation being completely objective is drastically decreased hurting science’s likelihood yet again of being proven as what the majority of people believe it to be: purely objective by nature. Chances are each of these individuals has a very distinct view of his/her own world (a subjective reality) and while some of these views might intertwine allowing them to observe the same occurrence, the experiment is still far from the realm of objective science and exists outside of objective reality. This is an example of what scientist and philosophers call intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity exists somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity and can be described as the way a large group of people view an event and how they come to a common scientific conclusion. In my opinion objectivity’s value will never outweigh that of intersubjectivity when executing scientific experimentation. Whether people are willing to acknowledge this or not, this intersubjectivity is how our perception of reality is conceived as well: a reality comprised of intermingling experiences and the ideals of many. Thus, intersubjectivity is not only more beneficial to science than objectivity but it’s basically how we as a society have interpreted our entire universe. What we see and how we define things is based around a universal consensus; it is quite a coalescing notion to contemplate.
Again, it is always easier to achieve a more accurate observation when dealing with a larger census group. If six people claim that an apple is red and five claim that it is pink, then the apple is likely red, or at least more so than it is pink. The majority always wins; consequently, following these principles forces us to claim that any given phenomena can’t be 100% true, hence we must label them each as “true enough.” These phenomena can’t be considered pure truth because even though the majority of the group witnessed the same event and came to the conclusion that the apple was red, there were still five individuals that occupied a reality where the apple was pink, merely because of this inexorable subjective outlook. Therefore, it is compulsory for us to assume these phenomena are true up until the point at which a group (or society) deems acceptable. Intersubjectivity triumphs over objectivity yet again!
However, there will always be a slight chance that the second observation, the one discarded by the group, was actually the more accurate or truthful of the two. This is the second problem when balancing scientific truth, objectivity and subjectivity. This idea could imply that the group or society isn’t constructing the universe, but rather the universe has already been constructed and we are simply perceiving it in an improper manner. If this idea intrigues you, you should look into something Edward Lorenz has dubbed The Chaos Theory- also known as The Butterfly Effect. I won’t go into great detail here, but he discusses how inconsequential changes are actually more relevant than we believe them to be and how one of these insignificant alterations could shift the entire universe and how we perceive it. Interesting stuff, but I digress.
So how can we ensure that the first event observed in an experiment, the one chosen by majority rule was actually the truest one and not the one that should have been discarded in the first place? How can we be certain that we are correctly perceiving the universe as it really is? One way is to discern a person’s particular authority; what kind of authority did each individual observing the phenomena have over or in said phenomena? To ensure a substantiated practice is taking place one must have a certain amount of skill in whatever phenomena he is participating. On top of finely tuned skills, one must also have the necessary objects to participate and the individual must be able to tell the difference between a relevant object and an irrelevant one. Once this is understood, determining which observation is truer becomes a simple task.
In a group of thirteen individuals, one or two of the participants will most likely have more authority in the given area of the phenomena than the rest, so all other observations are rendered less precise or even useless. The question that needs to be addressed now is whether or not this form of experimentation is any more objective than the others previously discussed. The answer? Absolutely not. For an observation to hold more weight it requires the observer to have experience in a field relevant to the phenomena being observed. By definition anything that requires any kind of subjective experience can’t be classified as an objective form of experimentation, further hurting society’s claims of science being an objective practice by nature. True objectivity wouldn’t allow for one’s own experiences to be utilized in such an experiment; for that reason, plus the necessity of certain skills and personal knowledge of instruments needed for a given field, the outcome of this example must be regarded, like the last, as intersubjective experimentation or alternatively an experiment with results that can be trusted as “true enough.”
Nevertheless, there are those that disagree. There are those that believe that objective science does exist and we can know certain things with absolute certainty. For instance, the great philosopher Karl Popper didn’t believe in using sense-perception as sustainable evidence for scientific fact and experimentation; he claimed these forms of knowledge were deceptive. Popper believed that the major problem with empiricism was that it relied to heavily on experiences and subjective knowledge, making it a hindrance to true scientific law; objective science was the best science and most effective. (The Problem of the Empirical Basis 75-76, Popper)
I can agree with him on the point that our senses have a tendency of deceiving us; mine have certainly deceived me on more than one occasion. But to fully reject sense-perception and one’s experiences when conducting an experiment seems a tad excessive. Without subjective experience the initial hypothesis for the experiment wouldn’t exist. The spark would be gone, hampering science at its foundation. It’s our experiences that allow us to ponder new ideas and build upon them every day. So for this reason I must disagree with Karl Popper.
To conclude I would like say this: there will always be individuals that believe science is an objective art based in pure truth and then there will be those that advocate the opposite. Balance is a natural part of the universe we live in. However, subjectivity will always find a way to sneak in through the cracks of logic and reason. I’d say it was up to the individual to decide whether science is an objective practice or not, but that would just prove my point. The act of choosing would be subjective in and of itself. Mankind is a social species; we are at our best when we work together in groups. This is why I believe in neither objective science nor subjective science alone; intersubjective science is what will yield the most fruitful results and give us a greater understanding of the world around us. A reality comprised of a multitude of individual ideals and experiences working together for the betterment of society. I don’t know about you, but that sounds promising to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment