Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is a very interesting question, although it seems naively simple. And there are many answers to it, which may lie on different levels.
Quite simply, a scientist is looking for the truth, and therefore what he saw, he published. This is the level of how a scientist is viewed from the outside by consumers of scientific knowledge.
Then there is the level of the scientist himself – his qualifications. And I would like to be objective, but education in the broadest sense of the word has failed. The point here is that science, starting a hundred years ago (very roughly, plus or minus forty for different disciplines) it began to require very complex experiments for the way forward. It's easy to smoke around here. And the results will not reflect reality. Then others will correct it, but when is unknown. Misconceptions can last a long time.
Then terrible things happen. You need a lot of money to do science. Very large ones. They are given under the promise of results. Objectively, research in the fashion field may not be interesting at all, but it is precisely for them that funding is allocated.
And the worst part. There are areas like global warming that are politically significant. If you give out results against the expectations of large groups interested in the correct answer, you will be thrown out of the cage. They need consensus.
Fortunately, there is an industry that finally puts everything in its place. Instead, a scientist should be objective and actually work – the consumer is always right. If the scientists have made a big mistake, then the product will not be available. And you got the reality right – here's your smartphone.
A scientist must be honest – first of all intellectually, but in every other sense, too. What is intellectual integrity? A scientist may be biased – preferring his hypothesis, all other things being equal, because it is his own. And it can be subjective – when it chooses this field of research, and not that. And intellectual honesty is when a scientist does not deceive himself. Don't say “unconvincing” to yourself about other people's arguments when you know inside that it's convincing. He doesn't say to himself, “well, that's not really what I said, and this argument doesn't refute me,” even though he knows it does. It doesn't try to interpret other people's arguments based on the assumption that the opponent is an idiot and obviously says something unreasonable. In general, he does not mislead himself, but honestly defends his position to himself and, as a result, to others.
Usually, this is roughly what is meant by the requirement of objectivity.
As we know, there is no absolute truth. The scientist is forced to make assumptions at all stages of applying the scientific method. Within these assumptions, he has his own individual vision of practical and scientific problems, structures important features of the composition and structure of the object and subject of research, builds hypotheses about the relationship and develops mathematical, economic and economic-mathematical models. Based on this, it sets up an experiment, systematizes the signs and, collects and processes information. Makes estimates with a certain accuracy.
Usually, the low objectivity of a scientist's opinion is caused by motivated and unmotivated use of models that are inadequate to the situation, information from indirect and secondary information sources rather than primary sources.
Therefore, the high objectivity of the scientist's work is confirmed by the correspondence of the applied scientific tools to the composition and structure of the research object, processes, tasks and results by checking the convergence of the calculated values according to the model and the values of the practical results of applying scientific recommendations. Practical verification in this case is a criterion for the objectivity of the scientist.
If it was written that it flies, then it should fly.
With respect. Alexander.
This expression, a scientist should be objective, is complete idiocy. The scientist tries to develop his own vision of the world, which should not be contradictory.
It should distinguish hypotheses, assumptions, and models from actual proven facts. The criterion for the truth of any scientific statement is a repeated independent test of experience.
Apparently, to stand on the right basis, with confirmation, this is mandatory for verification of one or another. The person must be honest, or competent in what is their interest. Otherwise, there is no way to know.
Since the scientist remains a person, a subject who occupies a certain position in the world and is endowed with certain innate properties, this leaves a certain imprint on the reproduction of the world. Therefore, the scientist, avoiding subjectivity, cannot completely free himself from it.
For example, take the decimal counting system: it is widely used due to the fact that we have 10 fingers on our hands. If there were 8 or 11 of them, then the counting system would be appropriate.
After all, we measure everything we study with ourselves?
The objectivity of a scientist has two meanings, everyday (procedural) and scientific (essentially).
In the first sense, it means that a scientist must be impartial, like a “fair arbiter” in court. The scientist should understand his / her duties to prove, and should not use “authoritative” ideas without justification, giving them an “advantage” over other ideas.
In the second sense, the scientist must use strictly logical objective data that does not depend on the personality of the experimenter, which is repeatable and verifiable.
These points are connected, together lead to “independence, objectivity of judgments”, but still slightly different concepts are used, and in such discussions one of the two meanings is sometimes confused or “forgotten”.
Especially philosophers do not like the concept of Objectivity, it destroys the whole meaning of philosophical demagogy about the subjective, and simply kills the very idea of “using the arguments of other authoritative philosophers” on which any kind of “scientific discipline” of the humanitarian type (which does not meet the criteria of Scientific character) is based.
This is not so much about the unacceptability of direct fraud for the sake of fame, career, and funding. Here, first of all, we are talking about the unacceptability of class, Marxist-Leninist “science”, the unacceptability of preconceptions. Ideally, a scientist should be able to enjoy the unpredictable results of experiments, which is exactly what is promising. Rather than confirming their own hypotheses, and even formulated within the framework of their political / religious doctrine.
And here there can be no discrepancies and some different interpretations from each other. Everything is very clear – a scientist must adhere to the principles of science, and not succumb to temptation and accept as truth what is convenient for him, because it is consistent with his worldview or personal material gain. Alas, this is relatively rare, even among world-class scientists. No one, not even Nobel laureates, is immune from the human factor, i.e. cognitive distortions.