Nature Of Science

Let’s chat about science! When we think about science, we often talk about two big ideas: subjectivity and objectivity. But what does it mean when we say something is objective?

Let’s find out together!

1. In the Ontological Approach - This view says that objectivity exists regardless of who’s observing it. It’s about the true existence of things and events, independent of our perceptions. It’s like saying there’s a reality out there, whether or not we’re there to see it. People who support this view are called realists.
2. In Epistemological Approach — Here, objectivity is seen in terms of scientific knowledge. It’s about trying to understand things without letting our personal biases or backgrounds influence what we believe. Subjectivity, on the other hand, refers to how our personal experiences and beliefs can shape what we think we know. So, objectivity is about separating what’s true from what we might want to believe.

You may have heard some unfamiliar words. Let’s clarify them.

Epistemology — Refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. Here we discuss how knowledge is produced, evaluated, and communicated within the scientific community. It is fundamental to understand subjectivity and objectivity.

Ontology — Refers to the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being, existence, and reality. An ontological view, therefore, refers to a particular perspective or stance regarding what exists and the nature of that existence

Phenomena — Refers to the observable events, facts, or occurrences in the world. These could include anything from the motion of celestial bodies to the behavior of subatomic particles, or even everyday occurrences like the boiling of water or the growth of plants. Essentially, phenomena encompass all aspects of the observable universe.

Epistemology itself is not subjective, the way we apply it and the process of acquiring knowledge can involve subjective elements that we need to be aware of and try to minimize. The goal of epistemology is often to find methods and approaches that minimize subjectivity and maximize objectivity in the pursuit of knowledge

When we talk about how social and historical factors, along with personal beliefs and theories, can affect scientific research. Some people believe that these factors can make science less objective, meaning it might not always be purely based on facts and evidence. They think that the way society works and the personal beliefs of scientists can influence what they study and how they interpret their findings.

However, not everyone agrees on how much these factors affect science. Some say they play a big role, while others don’t think they’re as important. Many educators don’t even separate the personal and social influences on research from the final scientific knowledge that comes out of it. They just talk about how different factors, both personal and social, can affect science in general.

Some people say that if scientific knowledge is partially subjective, it should answer these two questions.

1. Are the values of people influence the scientific knowledge produced by the scientific investigation?
2. Or just the investigation itself?

Some people believe that science is completely objective, and based purely on facts without any influence from personal beliefs. However, this isn’t always the case. Scientists can be influenced by their own theories and assumptions when conducting experiments or developing theories.

Take Coulomb’s law in electricity, for example. Even though it’s a famous scientific theory, it was shaped by Coulomb’s own beliefs and the ideas of other scientists. This shows that scientific results aren’t always entirely objective.

What I believe about NOS

In the world of science, what we consider as objective often begins as subjective interpretations by individuals. Take, for example, the structure of the atom. When the components of the atom — protons, neutrons, and electrons — were first identified, they were named and defined by individual scientists. These definitions were shaped by their personal backgrounds and beliefs. However, as more scientists came together and collectively accepted these definitions, they became widely regarded as objective truths.

Another instance is the observation that a person’s weight on the moon is one-sixth of their weight on Earth. Initially, this phenomenon was explained as a result of gravity, but the interpretation was subjective, influenced by individual perspectives. However, as Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity gained acceptance and became a universal concept, the explanation transitioned from subjective to objective.

Consider Alan Turing’s groundbreaking paper on machine intelligence. While Turing proposed the concept of intelligent machines, there were skeptics like John Searle who argued against the possibility of machine intelligence based on their personal beliefs and experiences. Ontologically, the existence of intelligent machines may be questioned, but epistemologically, the concept gained ground through experimentation and validation.

This highlights an essential aspect of scientific progress. The evolution of subjective interpretations into objective truths through consensus. While individual perspectives may initially shape scientific understanding, it is through collective acceptance and agreement among scientists that concepts become objective. This process allows for the exploration of new ideas and the advancement of knowledge.

In essence, the subjectivity of science serves as a foundation for the establishment of objective truths. Embracing diverse viewpoints enriches scientific discourse and fosters innovation, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the world around us.

In the philosophy of science, there’s a debate about objectivity involving two main parts. The “context of discovery” and the “context of justification.” The context of discovery is about how scientists come up with ideas, which can involve creativity and personal influences. The context of justification is about how scientists prove those ideas to be true using objective evidence and methods. It’s like the difference between having an idea and then proving it with facts. Both parts are important in understanding how science works and how we can trust scientific discoveries.

So, what does this all mean?

Science is pretty cool, right? It helps us understand the world around us. But science isn’t perfect. Even though scientists try to be super unbiased, sometimes their own ideas and experiences can color how they see things. That’s okay though! These different perspectives actually help science grow.

Imagine a puzzle. Each scientist has a piece, and by working together and sharing their ideas, they can eventually put the whole picture together. Even though the pieces might look different at first, in the end, they all fit together to show us something amazing!

So next time you hear about science, remember that it’s a work in progress. It’s constantly changing and evolving as we learn more. And that’s pretty awesome!