Replies

That’s where you went off the rails.

Not quite

If 50 doctors pick drug A to be the best drug for hypertension while 50 other docs pick drug B to be the best drug for hypertension and write papers supporting their findings, science is very much, in the end, subjective when it comes to my decision deciding how to lower my blood pressure.

Not at all. Your doctor's choice about which drug to use is subjective, the doctors who chose which drugs to study might have been subjective, but the scientific process used to determine the efficacy of the drugs themselves is quite objective.

The research, studies, peer review, publication and so on are all guarantees that, in the end, the drugs will have been scrutinized sufficiently to give a solid estimation of the expected outcomes.

Now, if three different drugs went through three different trials and came out roughly the same for cost and effectiveness then you and your doctor are welcome to choose which to use as subjectively as you want.

The interpretation of science very much is subjective and scientists are influenced by politics, ideology and yes money, just like anyone else.

True, but that has nothing to do with the objectivity of the science itself.

Scientists are people and, as such, fallable. Science, however, will always settle on truth in the end.

Global warming immediately comes to mind.

And this is an excellent example of junk science (like ID) that is readily disproven by rigorous application of the scientific method.

Right, they interpret the objective data, in a very subjective way. So who's to say what is or isn't obejctive other than by sheer scientific concensus?

Just like some astronomers are on board with reclassifying Pluto while others are not. And some scientists, while seeking out grant money, are arguing that manmade global warming is a valid argument, as well as evolution, nothing is immune to godless liberals, scientific or otherwise.

The objectivity of science you speak of is mere concensus and hardly stationery.

The research, studies, peer review, publication and so on are all guarantees that, in the end, the drugs will have been scrutinized sufficiently to give a solid estimation of the expected outcomes.

Nope, there are no guarantees of objectivity in peer review when all the peers are drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice it's a corrupted practice as human beings aren't 100% objective no matter how many times people say they are, or assert that they're inacapable of succumbing to outside influence.

So, how therefore can a scientist or anyone for that matter pretend to tell others, let alone demand from them, what is or isn't objective science?

algore said the debate is over...and there's your "in the end" problem...there literally IS no end when it comes to origins or which drug is the best choice or how to classify and reclassify Pluto.

It's an ongoing endeavor, with not only new data to be extrapolated but new methodologies to understand it.

After all, what once was alchemy is today called science and vice versa.......it's all about human interpretation and perception.

The only way to appreciate obejective science, whatever that is, is to remove the human element.

The problems with your last statement is algore has way more in common with his fellow godless liberals that have turned the theory of evolution into a cult with their myriad God-hang-ups and too many scientists are in his pocket ensuring it's not seen as junk science but as objective science, proving my very point.

Beware of any human being, scientist or otherwise, who thinks he has the keys to scientific objectivity.

Again, "in the end" (if there's such a thing), it's all about the interpretation and perception. More scientists can exclaim manmade global warming is real and obejective than do not, and bingo, it's magically "real" and "objective", and all via the guise of "peer review" no less.