Observation, Measurement and the Problem of Objectivity in Science

Science, Technology and Society 1 2T 2011-2012

The Measurement Activity

How did you arrive at your measurements? What is the experience of measuring these areas like?

Objectivity in Science
Science is an objective enterprise. Its objectivity is typified by its method:
Gathering information (via direct or indirect observation, measurement, experiments, etc.) Organizing information (classifications, measurement scales, models, theories, etc.) Accounting for phenomena (explanation, prediction, etc.) Data enhancement/extrapolation (evidence confirmation/falsification, hypothesis testing, etc.)

The Problem of Objectivity in Science

Is the scientific method itself foolproof? Is it really objective? I.e. can the findings of one scientist really be replicated, independently, by other scientists?

Consider the case of double-blind tests

Objectivity and Observation

Is there objectivity in observation? Is observation theory-free? Is it subjective? Is it really a good starting point of scientific investigations?

A Negative Answer
Our expectations, previous experience, training, etc. influence the categories by which we observe objects, events, processes, etc. Observation is not objective; it is subjective.

A Positive Answer
The theory-independence or neutrality of observable facts makes them a suitable foundation for scientific knowledge, or at least for testing theories. Observation is objective and not subjective.

Hansons Argument for the Subjectivity of Observation

Observation is an experience of seeing things as something This as something is already influenced by ones previous experience, expectation, etc. Thus, observation (seeing as) is not objective per se.

Consider flies and infants

Disclaimers
Of course there is an object observed. Of course there are physical effects of the bounce of light from an object to ones eyes. But observation is not any of these. It is an experience of seeing objects as something.

Schefflers argument for the objectivity of observation

Observation has a subjective aspect: it involves a certain sense of conceptualization. But conceptualization has two senses:
Concepts, general terms, categories, classes, vocabulary, etc. Propositions, statements, hypotheses, body of assertions, etc.

Observation is thus objective in the second sense.

Observation statements
I see a patch of red. I smell some fragrance. I taste something sweet. I feel something solid. These could be judged as true or false.

Schefflers point
Our categorizations and expectations guide by orienting us selectively toward the future; they set us, in particular, to perceive in certain ways and not in others. Yet they do not blind us to the unforeseen. They allow us to recognize what fails to match anticipation, affording us the opportunity to improve our orientation in response to disharmony.

What do you think?

Is Hanson right? Is observation really subjective (theory-laden)? Is Scheffler right? Is observation really objective? Does it start from being subjective to being objective?

Measurement
Science is objective because measurements can be tested by different scientists at different times and places.

Objectivity and Measurement

How many angles does a triangle have? What is the sum of all angles in a triangle? How do we double a square? How do we prove the Pythagorean theorem? All of these have definite answers.

Pythagorean Theorem
The square of the hypotenuse of a given right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

Doubling the Square

But is measurement really objective?

Jones Claim:
The process of measuring is fundamentally and irreducibly subjective as the nature of measurement itself.

The Argument:
In measuring anything, we must know what the thing we are measuring is, the kind of measuring devise and measuring system to use. But all the steps in this process already is subjective. Thus, measuring itself is subjective.

Motivation
Knowing the thing is seeing the thing as that thing (Hansons case again). The decision to use a ruler, a tape measure, an atomic measurement, etc. are all tied down to ones own judgment. The precision of measurement is also contaminated with ones own judgment. (How do we measure the closeness of two objects? Dont we use estimates?)

Metric or English
The very measuring system used in measuring length, width, height, etc. are all brought about by non-objective factors. Condorcet, in 1795, proposed the metric system. (This is opposition to the English system). The use of a universal metric system was brought about by a consensus by the late 19th to the early 20th century. UK still uses the English system.

The Issue
If measurement itself is subjective (theoryladen), what does this say about its role/s in scientific practice?
Is measurement a basis for objectivity? Is it a starting point of scientific inquiry? Does the reliability of measurement vary depending upon the presumptions that must be made (such as the measurement scale, the stability of the object being measured, etc.)?

What do you think?

Is measurement really objective? Why or why not?

Next Meeting
Scientific Experiments Per group, bring the following:
9 volt battery 3 feet thin copper wires 1 3 nail Paper clips 1 cup cornstarch Bowl 1/2 cup water spoon pie plate food coloring