Of course, not even mainstream science is objective. There has to be an element of subjectivity in the formulation of a hypothesis, for example. The power of science is that it has the means to test hypotheses by experiment and to verify experiments through peer review. The temptation is always to be selective in interpretation of results or in the choice of statistical methods employed.
Within science objectivity, is built upon a consensus about what is objective. This consensus has been immensely effective and has produced a convincing view of the universe, shown to predict observations to a high degree of consistency. But it is built upon consensus; there is no final arbiter of what is objective.
Ultimately, science is about selecting from a diversity of interpretations; interpretations that live and die depending upon what works.
Science is littered with assumptions made under a cloak of objectivity, later to be found to be completely unfounded. In the 1970s Hans Eysenck was well known for his objectionable views on race, based upon the results of IQ tests. The upshot was the realisation the tests themselves concealed a cultural biase.
Good science embraces subjectivity for the insights it can offer; its power is in the rigorous tests it can make once a subjective claim is made. Informed subjectivity has to be better than uninformed, subconscious biase.
Comments