|
22353
|
One view says objectivity is making a successful claim which captures the facts [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
One conception of objectivity is that the facts are 'out there', and it is the task of scientists to discover, analyze and sytematize them. 'Objective' is a success word: if a claim is objective, it successfully captures some feature of the world.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to describe truth, rather than objectivity. You can establish accurate facts by subjective means. You can be fairly objective but miss the facts. Objectivity is a mode of thought, not a link to reality.
|
|
22356
|
An absolute scientific picture of reality must not involve sense experience, which is perspectival [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sense experience is necessarily perspectival, so to the extent to which scientific theories are to track the absolute conception [of reality], they must describe a world different from sense experience.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 2.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a beautifully simple and interesting point. Even when you are looking at a tree, to grasp its full reality you probably need to close your eyes (which is bad news for artists).
|
|
22359
|
Topic and application involve values, but can evidence and theory choice avoid them? [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
There may be values involved in the choice of a research problem, the gathering of evidence, the acceptance of a theory, and the application of results. ...The first and fourth do involve values, but what of the second and third?
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 3.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] My own view is that the danger of hidden distorting values has to be recognised, but it is then possible, by honest self-criticism, to reduce them to near zero. Sociological enquiry is different, of course.
|
|
22360
|
The Value-Free Ideal in science avoids contextual values, but embraces epistemic values [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to the Value-Free Ideal, scientific objectivity is characterised by absence of contextual values and by exclusive commitment to epistemic values in scientific reasoning.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 3.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems appealing, because it concedes that we cannot be value-free, without suggesting that we are unavoidably swamped by values. The obvious question is whether the two types of value can be sharply distinguished.
|
|
22362
|
Value-free science needs impartial evaluation, theories asserting facts, and right motivation [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
Three components of value-free science are Impartiality (appraising theories only by epistemic scientific standards), Neutrality (the theories make no value statements), and Autonomy (the theory is motivated only by science).
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
[They are summarising Hugh Lacey, 1999, 2002] I'm not sure why the third criterion matters, if the first two are met. If a tobacco company commissions research on cigarettes, that doesn't necessarily make the findings false or prejudiced.
|
|
22364
|
Thermometers depend on the substance used, and none of them are perfect [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
Thermometers assume the length of the fluid or gas is a function of temperature, and different substances yield different results. It was decided that different thermometers using the same substance should match, and air was the best, but not perfect.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 4.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[summarising Hasok Chang's research] This is a salutary warning that instruments do not necessarily solve the problem of objectivity, though thermometers do seem to be impersonal, and offer relative accuracy (i.e. ranking temperatures). Cf breathalysers.
|
|
13070
|
If definitions must be general, and general terms can't individuate, then Socrates can't be defined [Aquinas, by Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne]
|
|
Full Idea:
Socrates has no definition if definitions by their nature must be in purely general terms, and if no purely general terms can succeed in uniquely singling out this signated matter.
|
|
From:
report of Thomas Aquinas (De Ente et Essentia (Being and Essence) [1267], 23) by Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J - Substance and Individuation in Leibniz 1.1.2
|
|
A reaction:
There seem to be two models. That general terms actually individuate the matter of Socrates, or that they cross-reference to (so to speak) define Socrates 'by elimination', as the only individual that fits. But the latter is a poor definition.
|