Does true scientific evidence really exist?

[RoseGoesToYale]

We're humans. We're intelligent and curious to a fault, but we are also fallible and easily influenced. We live in a world of people and organizations who have their own opinions, agendas, and lifestyles. Everything from our native language(s), religious upbringing, cultural events, socioeconomic status, personality, and intersectionality influences who each of us is and how we interact with the world. The thing about science, as I have been taught throughout school, is that it is supposed to be absolute and universally applicable, and that "good science" is ethical, repeatable and free of biases that skew the methodology or results to favor certain opinions or agendas.

 

The problem is, the more I think about, ALL scientific research ever conducted has completely failed in the latter, because ALL scientific research has been conducted by humans, and it's simply not possible to separate the researcher from their humanity, the part of them that is influenced by social norms, popular culture and ideas, political ideology, personal feelings toward others, even sometimes egotism. You also can't separate the human from the survival instinct, which in most societies today equates to the need to gain money to buy food.

 

Ultimately, it's the profit-driven media that gets to decide the fate of scientific research. Research that conforms to popular ideology is what gets into the news, and anything that contradicts it goes underreported. We can see this across political lines, as well... liberals accept science conducted by liberal scientists and that has results that support liberal goals. Conservatives accept science conducted by conservative scientists and that has results that support conservative goals. We, as humans, seek out information that confirms our experience, because hard truth, having your experience confirmed feels as good as a drug hit.

 

How can we reliably say that the results of any scientific research aren't the result of fantasy or influence, of the search for that "drug hit"? Scientists are very influential people with a lot of money to conduct science as they please. We common folk place trust in them to act for the good of humanity and to search for truth. It's fair to say that biological research on the female human body has been skewed by wealthy white male scientists of medicine's past who may have taken an inferior view of women and their bodies. But how do we know feminist biological research is any less biased by adhering to benevolent stereotypes of the female body? How do we know that both the old white dudes and the feminists haven't been influenced by overarching ideology that male and female bodies are essentially different? What if scientific research emerged that gave evidence that their bodies are essentially similar? Would anybody grant it any validity? And what if that research was done by scientists who were sick of the status quo and just wanted something different? If empiricism is based on use of the senses, namely sight and hearing, how can you be absolutely certain a scientist isn't seeing what they want to see, hearing what they want to hear?

 

How do we know the recent study absolving red meat wasn't done by a scientist who eats steak every night? How do we know the previous studies condemning red meat weren't conducted by vegetarians? How do we know studies connecting smoking to cancer weren't conducted by a heartbroken scientist whose mother died of cancer after smoking for years? How do we know studies that say a glass of red wine has health benefits weren't conducted by alcoholics who wanted to make themselves feel better? How do we know studies on CTE weren't conducted by disillusioned science geeks who want to get back at the football jocks for being popular in high school? How do we know if being too passionate about a science topic doesn't skew results, either? We'll never know, because it's kind of extremely difficult to study something you have no interest or investment in.

 

Sure, you can double-blind, randomize, and mathematize all you want, but then you have results, and hypotheses and results are two parts of an experiment or study that get rammed through the human lens. And it's not like we're all little mini-computers who can analyze all the studies and call bs on bad methodology, because we're not omniscient. How can we know that any of it is valid, and that we're not just kidding ourselves by using what we call "science" as a means to make ourselves feel superior as a species?

[Zagadka]

A core aspect of science is that it exists to prove itself wrong about direct observations. We can always misinterpret things or make mistakes, but as long as we are working to destroy our assumptions, or at least acknowledge where we are making assumptions, and continue to question each other openly, we're doing the best we possibly can.

 

I've personally never felt much attraction to the questioning reality philosophies, because my basic nature is to accept that I can be proven wrong, and once that happens, I'll accept that. I'm not going to worry too much about it as long as existence makes sense. That may or may not be a good attitude, but that's where I am. I'll listen to anyone who can actually make sense.

[NickyTannock]

I think you're missing that Science is adversarial, meaning Scientists are driven to disprove each others ideas, and that's how Science progresses.

[Lord Jade Cross]

Funny, Ive had talks with my grandfather that mirror this same doubt on various other subjects.

 

The long and short of it is that, yes, any and all research is biased to some degree or other and because we lack the equipment to really test for ourselves what is fed to us as "truth", we unfortunately have little choice in the matter. Even if we reject it, we cant disprove it.

 

Also, from my talks with my grandfather, it became evident that he (as well as how I see it happening to others) chose to pick the "truth" and accept it out of fear. That might seem odd at first but humans will choose to believe a lie, any lie, so long as it brings some form comfort to them, especially when its widely accepted. And if Pavlov had anything to prove is that yes, humans are driven by masses, even if the mass is knowingly wrong.

[SithLord]

Science is objective, our interpretations of it are not. It's why I still consider my preferred fields of psychology and sociology "soft sciences" because they deal with people that can lie and change and lead to problems you won't find in "hard sciences" which deal with chemicals or whatever. One is objective, the other is not. 

 

Studies can be ignored or go without testing because of social bias, but that doesn't stop science. Scientists have been treated like shit if teir studies disprove a common belief (like the Earth being the center of the solar system) but are then held up as brave and a good example of what science should be once their views are socially supported. For example, the Anti-Vaxx movement and Flat Earthers make the rest of us groan and hit our heads against the wall because of their supposed "research" and "studies" when you can prove, objectively, that any evidence they have is full of holes that wouldn't and isn't taken seriously in science. Climate change deniers ignore the facts and look only to their own sources for evidence, but that's not science. That's human folly. 

[daveb]

In a way the "proof" that science works is in results, such as the digital devices we are all using, medicine (in the broader sense of medical practice and not just drugs) that saves lives, and many other things we all take advantage of in our daily lives. The "proof" can also be seen when discoveries in one area help us figure out and/or confirm stuff in other areas. Also, science isn't about finding "the truth". It's more about getting closer and closer to knowledge that works. It's also about exploring the unknown. It's imperfect and doesn't claim to be perfect. Scientists know they are human, so they look for biases in themselves and their studies and in other scientists and their studies. Questioning those things is also a part of science. It's always a work in progress. New evidence can change things and does so constantly.

[Sally]

22 minutes ago, GhostGoesToWail said:

The problem is, the more I think about, ALL scientific research ever conducted has completely failed in the latter, because ALL scientific research hasrofit-driven media that gets to decide the fate of scientific research. Research that conforms to popular ideology is what gets into the news, and anything that contradicts it goes underreported. 

...

How do we know the recent study absolving red meat wasn't done by a scientist who eats steak every night? do we know the previous studies condemning red meat weren't conducted by vegetarians? 

 

Well, we actually do know that the scientist saying that red meat isn't so bad for you has taken money from meat industry corporations, because the media which you claim has so much malign influence told us so.  

[LeChat]

Well, that's the reason why they have peer-reviews (https://library.sdsu.edu/reference/news/what-does-peer-review-mean), study different types of participants' health over several years (for studies related to possible health issue/hypothesis), and conduct more than one research study, done by several scientists in many different countries, with a variety of research participants around the world (to make sure there isn't a bias or a hasty decision).

[N8ty L3asT]

@GhostGoesToWail I think it could be said the same for all topics like politics, history/religion. And I don’t think it matters who’s studying what since they get it wrong more times than not, like the one link you posted about the star or planet astronomers found that predates their theory of how old the galaxy is. 

[Internetlionboy]

49 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

I think you're missing that Science is adversarial, meaning Scientists are driven to disprove each others ideas, and that's how Science progresses.

^^^ this

[Yeast]

Scrutinizing scientific truth is a bit pointless because there is no such thing. Scientific truth does not exist. Scientific theory does. Theories are best guesses based on observation. They give science flexibility in the sense a theory can easily be disproved if another set of observations contradicts the first set. Maybe the original argument is best made when dealing with quantum physics. In this realm the expectations of the observer directly influence the result of the experiment.  I found an electron in the left box. Maybe tomorrow I'll expect the electron to be in the right box and in fact there is exactly where it will be. On days when I'm undecided it is apt to be in both boxes - at the same time. Despite this, quantum physics has given the us some wonderful technology even though it contradicts itself with every observation. The ultimate question is how such an uncertain and chaotic foundation can give rise to a world in which we can postulate truths, either absolute in terms of religion or theoretical in terms of science.  Its a sad fact that modern science is more often than not driven by business interests but classical scientists of the past weren't driven by consumerism. They were driven by curiosity. Thus, if I hold a rock in my hand and let go it will travel downward until it hits the ground, subatomic particles or not. Scientists don't all agree on this because they want to be politically correct. Its just that nobody has ever observed a rock falling up. The point is that if they did, then the theory of gravitation might be overturned. There are no scientific truths, just scientific laws. If the law turns out to be bad, change it.  I think, therefore I am. Yet I have no real proof anybody exists in the same sense I do. I believe it ultimately becomes a pragmatic compromise one makes in believing the world exists beyond themselves. This is all theoretical of course.

[Guest]

From what I know about science, don't they do everything they can to disprove something before it's considered an acceptable theory? As some here may know, I disagree with a LOT about science (especially when it comes to ancient history and stuff.. I think they know crap all when it comes to our ancient past lol)..but yeah for something basic like Plants photosynthesising carbon dioxide into oxygen or whatever they do, I think science has a pretty good grasp on all that based on the methods they use to reach their conclusions.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Everyone else has already covered the main stuff, but also

 

1 hour ago, GhostGoesToWail said:

Scientists are very influential people with a lot of money to conduct science as they please

As a scientist, I'd love to know where all this money is you speak of!

 

[Guest]

There's no such thing as objective scientific fact, just theories that haven't been disproven yet.

 

But funnily enough, this "well, that's our best guess for now, you're welcome to make a different one and we'll see if it works any better" approach is exactly what led to tons of technological progress.

[Skycaptain]

The book "Bad Pharma" by Ben Macentyre makes interesting reading on this subject. A lot of academic research is industry sponsored, and the sponsors determine how the results are presented. So in some cases if research suggests there product is less effective than another they'll publish it internally within the company. However, in other areas, such as the increased prevalence of certain diseases in smokers, the sheer weight of research publications can overcome the industry's attempts at suppression. 

 

Research should be peer-reviewed, which is why things like cold fusion were swiftly discredited. Then, as has also been alluded to, is how published research is assimilated. A well researched piece may be presented for review, and the paper contains a caveat such as "small sample size, further investigation needed". The idea being that others should attempt to replicate the original study to see if it's an anomaly or accurate. But if it suits an interest group, they'll jump on it as unequivocal fact. 

[Guest]

You can not prove if something is true, you can only prove if something is wrong. So science can't reach a state of truth. The only thing we know for sure is that the disproved theories are wrong. Apart from that science is a method to gain knowledge, or to throw the wrong ideas out, as objective as possible. Of course there are still unscientific influences on scientists, because they are human and that is ok because we all depend on our own perception. But these influences are reduced to a minimum and that worked pretty well in the past.

[uhtred]

11 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

From what I know about science, don't they do everything they can to disprove something before it's considered an acceptable theory? As some here may know, I disagree with a LOT about science (especially when it comes to ancient history and stuff.. I think they know crap all when it comes to our ancient past lol)..but yeah for something basic like Plants photosynthesising carbon dioxide into oxygen or whatever they do, I think science has a pretty good grasp on all that based on the methods they use to reach their conclusions.

Maybe a different discussion, but what parts of ancient past do you think scientists got wrong.  (for me, I've very happy that they are *finally* starting to recognize that water makes travel easier, not harder.   I've thought the idea of needed a "land bridge" to reach the Americas was an extremely silly concept. 

 

That and the tendency to define anything no understood as "religious".  I picture future archaeologists unearthing a karaoke bar. 

[uhtred]

Several ways to look at scientific accuracy. 

 

You of course have to start by assuming that at some level what our senses tell us is true.  If we are all in some giant simulation, then all bets are off on everything. So we have to start with that assumption. 

 

Then scientists spend a lot of time trying to find mistakes in existing theories - the really is how someones reputation is made.  Scientists are generally rewarded in the careers by discovering that something that was thought to be true, wasn't.    So the people who think that there so some sort of scientific conspiracy to  protect current theories are just wrong. What can give that impression though is that most people outside of a field don't know just how many tests have already been done - an after enough testing there really is no point trying again unless you have a fundamentally new idea. 

 

You can play billiards forever and not find a mistake in mechanics. When people looked under different conditions (high speeds, stronger gravity - orbit of Mercury) they did find discrepancies and eventually relativity was developed.   Today there are discrepancies but they are under rather extreme conditions.  Galaxies don't rotate the way that was originally expected - "dark matter" is a theory for why that is the case, but its not the only possible one.    The universe doesn't seem to be expanding in the originally predicted way -  "dark energy" is a stand in for what might cause that - and experiments are underway to try to look for other evidence.

 

Now science *can* be influenced by money and politics and personally (as a working scientists) I see this as an increasing problem.  Decades ago when I started my career, there was a lot less competition for funding. These days with more competition, the incentive to cheat a little has grown.  I don't see a lot of actual fraud but I do see a disturbing tendency for people to describe things in ways that could be misinterpreted in order to get more funding.  Its very disturbing to me. 

 

There is some real fraud.  Look up "ultradense hydrogen".   You will find a bunch of papers  - these are complete frauds perpetrated by a group scamming companies out of cold fusion money.   A few papers even snuck into refereed journals because referees are not perfect - if you throw a bad paper at enough journals, sometimes it will stick.

 

Fields where there is a lot of money (like medicine) are more susceptible to fraud.  (no one is going to bribe an astrophysicist to falsify the power spectrum of polarization asymmetry in the CMB background, but a clinical trial of a multi-billion$ drug is a whole different issue).   I do have concerns about how science is done and funded. 

 

That said, it still works very well, and the evidence is that a large number of thinks derived from science (like the computer you are using) work.  I can't remember the last time a really major fraud or mistake was uncovered - us usually specific studies that are found out.     Overall I think the system is quite good, but I think there are some improvements. to be made. 

 

 

 

[R_1]

39 minutes ago, uhtred said:

You can play billiards forever and not find a mistake in mechanics. When people looked under different conditions (high speeds, stronger gravity - orbit of Mercury) they did find discrepancies and eventually relativity was developed.   Today there are discrepancies but they are under rather extreme conditions.  Galaxies don't rotate the way that was originally expected - "dark matter" is a theory for why that is the case, but its not the only possible one.  

I have been looking into this as I find knowing the origin of the universe is very important to me, but as a layman, I have to admit that there's nothing that works better than dark matter. The fifth force (Chameleon Theory) have been ruled out, MOND can't bypass their flaws at all, so there have to be dark matter. The most mundane possibility is they don't exist at all, but for that to be looked into, they would need to rule out those candidates altogether specifically though. If axions and sterile neutrinos don't seem to exist i.e they exhausted all possible parameter modification, and indistinguishable from background, then you would have to look into gravitino, and if they don't find it using paleo-detection method, then that's pretty much signal a need for new candidates or physics altogether.

• Superheavy Gravitino
• Axions
• Sterile Neutrino

[uhtred]

5 minutes ago, R_1 said:

I have been looking into this as I find knowing the origin of the universe is very important to me, but as a layman, I have to admit that there's nothing that works better than dark matter. The fifth force (Chameleon Theory) have been ruled out, MOND can't bypass their flaws at all, so there have to be dark matter. The most mundane possibility is they don't exist at all, but for that to be looked into, they would need to rule out those candidates altogether specifically though. If axions and sterile neutrinos don't seem to exist i.e they exhausted all possible parameter modification, and indistinguishable from background, then you would have to look into gravitino, and if they don't find it using paleo-detection method, then that's pretty much signal a need for new candidates or physics altogether.

• Superheavy Gravitino
• Axions
• Sterile Neutrino

We are missing a very important set of observations during the "dark ages" the time after the big bang fireball cools down, but before the first stars ignite. That is the time when the universe goes from almost perfectly smooth to being very lumpy (galaxies etc).  Its unfortunately very difficult to observe because there is nothing creating light.  Radio telescopes looking in the red shifted 21cm band are probably the best bet, but an array with enough sensitivity to see back to that time would need to be really huge.    It would proved a lot of information on dark matter because that likely had a strong influence on the clumping.   

 

Otherwise there are lots a astrophysics studies and lots of ground based dark matter detection experiments - but dark matter could interact so weakly that its can't ever be detected on earth.

 

So far its tough to narrow down the possibilities.  We know its not made of normal matter (not dust etc). Otherwise its particles that have mass but which interact very weakly if at all with either normal matter or each other.  Whatever it is, there is more of it than there is normal matter in the universe......

 

 

 

 

[R_1]

Question, do you think it's possible that dark matter has been disappearing, and that's why we haven't been finding confirmatory finding of it i.e it already decayed altogether from we're at? This can also explain the Hubble tension.

[uhtred]

24 minutes ago, R_1 said:

Question, do you think it's possible that dark matter has been disappearing, and that's why we haven't been finding confirmatory finding of it i.e it already decayed altogether from we're at? This can also explain the Hubble tension.

I guess its possible that it decays into pairs of mass-less particles that then are not very gravitationally bound. Now we are getting beyond my  knowledge, but I don't know if it could couple to a field like that, but still be as non-interacting as it seems to be.   I thought there was evidence for dark matter in fairly recent galaxies (recent means <1B years ago).   I'd bet the hubble issue is more likely to do with dark energy but don't know.  I think its also possible that there is a whole spectrum of dark particles, and and maybe that would fit the models better. 

 

Sadly though I mostly just build the telescopes, I don't really understand what is at the other end. 

 

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, uhtred said:

Maybe a different discussion, but what parts of ancient past do you think scientists got wrong.  (for me, I've very happy that they are *finally* starting to recognize that water makes travel easier, not harder.   I've thought the idea of needed a "land bridge" to reach the Americas was an extremely silly concept. 

 

That and the tendency to define anything no understood as "religious".  I picture future archaeologists unearthing a karaoke bar. 

Well it wasn't that long ago that the scientific consensus was that humans evolved from Neanderthals, as one example. Another example is the dating of the Sphinx which shows evidence of water erosion but the only time there was that much water in Egypt was thousands of years before the pyramids are believed to have been built. Then there's the controversy over whether the Saxons invaded or migrated into Britain.. then there's the Younger Drias Impact controversy, and the way the mass extinction of the dinosaurs as a result of asteroid impact was initially ridiculed by the entire scientific community until the crater was found. And the way the people who believed Troy could have been a real city were ridiculed until the ruins of Troy were actually found.. and the implications of the discovery of Göbekli Tepe and well.. I could go on forever. When it comes to the ancient past, it's pretty much all just guesswork until something new comes up, then it's more guesswork. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't claim theories about the past as absolute scientific fact (and ridicule anyone who questions those theories) but then instantly change the theory as soon as new evidence comes up, even if the new theory proves that the person they were just ridiculing was actually right. We're having own issues here in NZ with the Urukehu and NZs ancient history which is being utterly denied but ..urgh.. that's all a different topic.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, uhtred said:

I've very happy that they are *finally* starting to recognize that water makes travel easier, not harder.   I've thought the idea of needed a "land bridge" to reach the Americas was an extremely silly concept. 

And yes, I completely agree!! I get pretty irrationally happy when they start changing previously held almost-dogmatic beliefs for something much more sensible Though in saying that I still love the idea of a land bridge too, haha. But they have underestimated for so long just how much mastery many ancient civilisations had of water travel, both on rivers and on oceans.

[uhtred]

16 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

And yes, I completely agree!! I get pretty irrationally happy when they start changing previously held almost-dogmatic beliefs for something much more sensible Though in saying that I still love the idea of a land bridge too, haha. But they have underestimated for so long just how much mastery many ancient civilisations had of water travel, both on rivers and on oceans.

I've always wanted to watch a race from the western tip of Alaska to California. One group gets to take skin-covered boats, the other gets to walk...... through central Alaska... which is full of ridiculously tall and impassible mountains, and is insanely cold in the winter (its too far to walk in 1 year). The boat guys get to eat fresh Salmon (yum) from the rivers, and travel in the quite moderate coastal climate.     I know which I'd pick.  

 

Its as if all anthropologists are from New Jersey or some other place that doesn't have any terrain.

 

Sea levels have risen a LOT (100M) since the ice age so the coastal settlements would be long drowned.  Recently some evidence of a sea route is starting to show up. 

 

Australia was settled across deep water much earlier than the Americas (>45K years ago I think)  so at lest some very early cultures had the technology. 

 

I'm a physical scientist, so I guess I don't really count anthropologists.  (sorry just being mean). 

[RakshaTheCat]

On 10/17/2019 at 9:01 PM, Mysticus Insanus said:

But funnily enough, this "well, that's our best guess for now, you're welcome to make a different one and we'll see if it works any better" approach is exactly what led to tons of technological progress.

I've always loved that approach and have used it naturally since I can remember, but discovering that people generally don't think in that way was very disheartening...

My guess is this is why OP has her doubts. When you are surrounded by irrational people whose reasoning is driven mostly  by ego or emotional investment, it can be hard to realize how science manages to produce good results despite all that.

[uhtred]

2 hours ago, RakshaTheCat said:

I've always loved that approach and have used it naturally since I can remember, but discovering that people generally don't think in that way was very disheartening...

My guess is this is why OP has her doubts. When you are surrounded by irrational people whose reasoning is driven mostly  by ego or emotional investment, it can be hard to realize how science manages to produce good results despite all that.

From what I've seen, scientists *are* often very driven by ego, but in the end, when push comes to shove, they seem mostly very honest technically.  Even with pretty high career stakes, I've found outright technical lies to be very rare.   (that is of course just my experience). 

 

 

[RakshaTheCat]

50 minutes ago, uhtred said:

From what I've seen, scientists *are* often very driven by ego, but in the end, when push comes to shove, they seem mostly very honest technically.  Even with pretty high career stakes, I've found outright technical lies to be very rare.   (that is of course just my experience).

Exactly, people are driven by ego, but science found a way to deal with it by basically encouraging people to check each other's research, am I correct?

 

This seems to be completely opposite to normal social behavior. In social circles, people are encouraged to agree with each other no matter how stupid something is, or else they get ostracized by said circle. This is actually a reason why I despise social interaction so much, since agreeing with everything blindly is one of the cringiest things for me... 😺

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 10/16/2019 at 9:27 PM, GhostGoesToWail said:

We're humans. We're intelligent and curious to a fault, but we are also fallible and easily influenced. We live in a world of people and organizations who have their own opinions, agendas, and lifestyles. Everything from our native language(s), religious upbringing, cultural events, socioeconomic status, personality, and intersectionality influences who each of us is and how we interact with the world. The thing about science, as I have been taught throughout school, is that it is supposed to be absolute and universally applicable, and that "good science" is ethical, repeatable and free of biases that skew the methodology or results to favor certain opinions or agendas.

 

The problem is, the more I think about, ALL scientific research ever conducted has completely failed in the latter, because ALL scientific research has been conducted by humans, and it's simply not possible to separate the researcher from their humanity, the part of them that is influenced by social norms, popular culture and ideas, political ideology, personal feelings toward others, even sometimes egotism. You also can't separate the human from the survival instinct, which in most societies today equates to the need to gain money to buy food.

 

Ultimately, it's the profit-driven media that gets to decide the fate of scientific research. Research that conforms to popular ideology is what gets into the news, and anything that contradicts it goes underreported. We can see this across political lines, as well... liberals accept science conducted by liberal scientists and that has results that support liberal goals. Conservatives accept science conducted by conservative scientists and that has results that support conservative goals. We, as humans, seek out information that confirms our experience, because hard truth, having your experience confirmed feels as good as a drug hit.

 

How can we reliably say that the results of any scientific research aren't the result of fantasy or influence, of the search for that "drug hit"? Scientists are very influential people with a lot of money to conduct science as they please. We common folk place trust in them to act for the good of humanity and to search for truth. It's fair to say that biological research on the female human body has been skewed by wealthy white male scientists of medicine's past who may have taken an inferior view of women and their bodies. But how do we know feminist biological research is any less biased by adhering to benevolent stereotypes of the female body? How do we know that both the old white dudes and the feminists haven't been influenced by overarching ideology that male and female bodies are essentially different? What if scientific research emerged that gave evidence that their bodies are essentially similar? Would anybody grant it any validity? And what if that research was done by scientists who were sick of the status quo and just wanted something different? If empiricism is based on use of the senses, namely sight and hearing, how can you be absolutely certain a scientist isn't seeing what they want to see, hearing what they want to hear?

 

How do we know the recent study absolving red meat wasn't done by a scientist who eats steak every night? How do we know the previous studies condemning red meat weren't conducted by vegetarians? How do we know studies connecting smoking to cancer weren't conducted by a heartbroken scientist whose mother died of cancer after smoking for years? How do we know studies that say a glass of red wine has health benefits weren't conducted by alcoholics who wanted to make themselves feel better? How do we know studies on CTE weren't conducted by disillusioned science geeks who want to get back at the football jocks for being popular in high school? How do we know if being too passionate about a science topic doesn't skew results, either? We'll never know, because it's kind of extremely difficult to study something you have no interest or investment in.

 

Sure, you can double-blind, randomize, and mathematize all you want, but then you have results, and hypotheses and results are two parts of an experiment or study that get rammed through the human lens. And it's not like we're all little mini-computers who can analyze all the studies and call bs on bad methodology, because we're not omniscient. How can we know that any of it is valid, and that we're not just kidding ourselves by using what we call "science" as a means to make ourselves feel superior as a species?

 

There is no pure objectivity.

 

Objectivity is a matter of degree.

 

We have objectivity when everybody following the same steps in an inquiry/investigation gets the same results--who is conducting the inquiry/investigation does not influence the outcome of the inquiry/investigation.

 

Objectivity does not mean that the results are correct. It simply means that, to the extent that the inquiry/investigation was designed to maximize it, the results are objective.

 

Measuring with a ruler that everybody uses is more objective than measuring with each person's vision alone. But if the ruler is defective the results will be false no matter how much you have eliminated subjectivity.

 

It does not matter who is funding the inquiry/investigation. Funding does not reduce objectivity--the design of the inquiry/investigation reduces objectivity.

 

Things like money, reputations and politics might influence what inquiries/investigations are conducted, but they do not necessarily change the outcome.

 

If your point is that we do not know anything for sure, nobody disagrees with you. If your point is that science is not purely objective, you are probably responding to a strawman--objectivity is a matter of degree, and I doubt that anybody, not even the most outspoken proponents of scientism, has ever said anything to the contrary.

 

The problem is when supporters of science confuse greater objectivity with authority. A greater degree of objectivity might make something more reliable, but it does not make it authoritative.

 

Take the results of science however you want to--with a grain of salt, as the final authority, or something in between. How we respond to science is subjective. Let's not confuse that with the degree to which inquiries/investigations are objective.

 

If you want to say, "The research was designed to be as objective as possible, but my intuition tells me that the results are most likely false", that is a perfectly reasonable response.

 

The fact that research was not objective to a certain degree is not necessarily evidence of bad, unreliable science. Other things, such as time, might be more important than a high degree of objectivity. Nobody is going to care 200 years from now if blood spatter in a homicide investigation was not analyzed with the precision of the study of subatomic particles. They will care about whether or not justice was served.

 

Again, objectivity is a matter of degree. How objective we ought to be depends on what our needs are at the moment. Incompletely eliminating bias is not necessarily the failure, neglect, deception, etc. that it seems you would have us believe it is.

[PoeciMeta]

Okay, we can go very deep with that. You can't prove the intentions of researchers, sure. But science is devoid of intention. If you can find different sources that use rigorous scientifical method and point to the same conclusion, it's rather safe to assume that said conclusion is true. 

But it's impossible to know how much of your existence is a lie. 

Everything we learn via other living beings is susceptible of being false because they can easily corrupt the information. Even better, everything we know is conditioned by our senses. We interpret specific vibrations and molecules and stuff and it makes up a world which we're able to navigate, and that is all, it's what we hold as a subjective reality, but there's no telling how reality really is. Besides, a hammerhead's subjective reality must be drastically different. 

In the end, the only thing one can be certain of is one's own existence. It's called solipsism. Like skepticism, but worse. The existence of my consciousness is something I can be sure of even without formal proof. Everything else we count as true is just what's most likely to be true based on our subjective reality model. 

 

Trying to define the nature of a proof is a concept that makes me want to curl up and disappear, actually...