"Are you implying that the methods of science are other than objective?" Well, sure. Politics, hunches, intuition, socioeconomic background, religious prejudice (including atheism) all figure prominently in human activity - and science is a human activity.
All dogs are carbon based organisms.
All cats are carbon based organisms.
Therefore, cats are really just a kind of dog.
or
Nonobjective activity like politics, hunches, intuition is human activity.
Science is human activity.
Therefore science is just another nonobjective activity.
This is a formal fallacy called Illicit Major, and is documented here.
Thanks for warning me about those guys. This is a pretty basic error.
Hank
"Nonobjective activity like politics, hunches, intuition is human activity. Science is human activity. Therefore science is just another nonobjective activity. This is a formal fallacy called Illicit Major, and is documented here. Thanks for warning me about those guys. This is a pretty basic error."
It _is_ a basic error - but this is not my syllogism, it is yours. Mine goes like this:
All humans have a metaphysical viewpoint that cannot be escaped.
Scientists are human.
Therefore, scientists have metaphysical viewpoints, etc.
There is no priviliged view from on high. At any rate, simple historical record shows convincingly that non-objective criteria play a large part in science, especially in determining which problems deserve attention and which are to be ignored. The longer I live, the more I see Kuhn validated.