Objectivity is highly desirable in research; but in your opinion, is it really possible to maintain complete objectivity?
Disinterestedness, which to Robert K. Merton meant objectivity, is one of the four principles of scientific knowledge gener, expressed in his book The Sociology of Science....
Ogranized skepticism , communism, and universalism Are the other three.
Objectivity is the first priority in research work. Subjectivity is too general. In objectivity, researchers are always working to maintain accuracy and credibility.
Objectivity refers to the desirable principle that researchers should remain ”neutral” in a way that their personality, beliefs and values should not any aspect of the research, especially the interpretation of findings. Is it possible?
Inwill reveal my bias about the topic later on as the discussion progresses.
Research process meant to be striving for objectivity and eliminating the chances of subjectivity to the zero level; yes with conscious efforts, objectivity could be maintained at 95%-99%, but 100%,...difficult to achieve, as, ...whenever, human factor is involved.
Basically, “objectivity” is not possible in research. We can achieve some amount of “objectivity”; however, it is just applied to a research methodology. We scholars should be mindful that we just see the phenomenon of interest from our own viewpoint only.
في البحوث الإنسانية لا يمكن تطبيق الموضوعية بشكل كامل وإنما بصورة جزئية ففي طبيعة الحال ما اريد إثباته سأكون متحيزه باتجاههه وهذا بخلاف الموضوعية وسأاستعمل الموضوعية فقط في جوانب محددة كالاحصائيات والثوابت العامة
In human research can not apply objectivity in full but in part in the nature of what I want to prove I will be biased towards him and this is not objective and I will use objectivity only in specific aspects such as statistics and general constants
I understand the objectivity as the accuracy in tests.Then, I should do all the best to explain results. Results of tests will be useful to be applied depending on the degree of objectivity.
Objectivity is the first priority in research work. Subjectivity is too general. In objectivity, researchers are always working to maintain accuracy and credibility.
The word objectivity is used in a practical way, in a vague way. It means that the search is solid, well arranged, logically sequential, and sometimes meant that the search is accompanied by physical evidence of historical figures and incidents, sometimes it is meant to look at people, Sometimes it is meant to discard the undisciplined ideas that people embrace on many life issues.
The concept of objectivity originated in the scientific atmosphere that followed the experimental methodology in a detailed and precise manner, where it isolates the factors that have nothing to do with the phenomenon under study and begins with testing and experimentation. The understanding of the phenomenon is to install all the variables except one that changes it and anticipates the results of this change. To prove causality, three conditions must be met:
a. The causation occurs before the expected effect.
B. That there is a significant correlation / empiric relationship between them (ie when a change occurs in the first accompanied by a change in the second steadily)
T. That the contrary interpretations should be avoided
I think No; Objectivity is not possible in Research.
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/objectivity-possible-social-science-research-408559
The researcher remains in a state of conflict between proving facts and the real dimensions of research, and the outcome of the conflict may be resolved by prejudice against the reality of the results of the research, and often the good researcher tries to leave the factual facts take their course in achieving the objectivity of the research negative or positive
I believe that most of the researchers take the objectivity principle into consideration. Some researchers may go beyond it or violate this consensus.
Looking for TRUTH is the paramount goal in any research. The formula for truth is:
TRUTH = FACTS + LOGIC + BELIEVES
'OBJECTIVITY' is basically related to the term 'BELIEVES'. People believe in many things. In sciences, many believes sometimes are staying unchanged for a long while.
However, there are no warranties that it may stay for ever. If experiments make questionable certain believes - it is good. However, sometimes believes ought to be revised. Hence, objectivity is not an absolute notion. The better a researcher understands the history, philosophy, and methodology of the own scientific domain, the more chances for a much better objectivity in the research results.
Scientific research is by definition objective. A subjective science can not exist. All that is scientific knowledge is objective. However, a large part of scientific knowledge and its application can be defined as "Art" that uses: "objective" scientific methods and objective empirical observations. This "art" can be and in many cases it is necessarily subjective in the sense that "scientists" with more or less experience find the solution more or less quickly. A small example: all the sciences that have to do with biology often have to use subjectivity because often specimens of the same species respond differently to the same physical, chemical or psychic stimulus. Obviously, the use of the results of scientific research and the type of art, described here, is subjective and questionable.
My own position is that maintaining objectivity is like aiming to be good. No matter how much we want to, we will not be able to achieve perfection in being good or for that matter, maintaining objectivity. More later.
Thank you all for participating in this discussion. Nazia Asad , Claire Su-Yeon Park , Qasim M. Shakir , Zainab A Makawi , Wahag Abass
Objectivity is a goal that most people try to get to. But this goal is not always attainable as it is equal to accuracy that can be fetched sometimes.
Objectivity has a priority to support the credibility of scientific research.
I think so, when there is a sincere intention to accomplish a distinguished search.
Objectivity is at the heart of good research. You quite frequently see articles published by pharma industries making claims. It is difficult for such articles to be objective because they are p[aid by their principals to come up with a certain conclusion.
Of Course, the objectivity is main goal in research, if one may do the professional research.
Research is a production of humain, no humain without subjectivity. so all humain''s productions are affected by subjectivity.
Dear Milan B. Vemić , Isam Issa Omran , thanks for your contributions to this discussion.
Following the principles for maintaining the rigor of science in research while applying the ideals of excellence and integrity can assist researchers to be objective.
Fouzia Benabdallah , Srini Vasan , thank you for sharing your thoughts.
When one is a scientist, whether one likes it or not, one frames a question based on ones previous background. let us put the example of two different experts whose background is different and come to conflicting views in interpretation of the same experiment. But, why is this so? The answer lies in the conception of models. When one does a model one is taking a complex phenomena and in order to make it tractable one simplifies the behavior into a more simple behavior. At this point the model becomes a subjective choice on the part of the researcher.
Our sciences are built on models that simplify the true complex nature of what we experience and do science on.
To summarize, it is my belief that science cannot be objective.
Fouzia Benabdallah , Lamia Al-Naama , thanks for sharing your insights.
Objectivity means that the researcher is committed to his research scientific standards and the inclusion of facts and facts that support his point of view as well as that conflict with his point of view. The researcher must recognize the findings even if they do not apply to his or her perceptions and expectations.
Everything needs objective in order to reach desire goal. That path may different but goal should be understandable.
Thank you Nadeem Ahmad Khan , for your contribution to this discussion.
Be very specific in objective. Do all job of the Research remembered objective.
Objectivity is not only but necessary desirable and possible, but complete objectivity may be difficult to achieve
“There is Nothing More Practical Than A Good Theory” (Kurt Lewin)
“Good” theories are distinguished by being part of a progressive and advancing research programme, while “bad” theories are associated with a regressive research program. Article “There is Nothing More Practical Than A Good Theory” (Kurt L...
We see the phenomenon of interest from our own lense. Like Kurt Lewin said, objectivity is actually a relative concept.
Perhaps it is necessary to define better what is meant by scientific research. My (personal and subjective) definition of scientific research is to investigate how the universe is made and how it works. This study must be conducted in an objective way that is all the measures, the samplings, the experiments etc. they must be done objectively. Therefore, the scientific research is by definition objective. Scientific research in medicine is absolutely objective as in all other sciences; the care of people (ie the application of a result of medical science) is often subjective. A doctor, on the basis of his personal and subjective experience, can cure an illness better and faster than another doctor. In fact, the placebo effect exists. In summary, scientific research is absolutely objective; the application of a scientific research result can be subjective.
I don't believe that research we are doing is objective. Maybe the raw data are objective fact, but how we interpret it - it is always subjective in some way, as well methods we chose to test a hypothesis. We are the humans, we are always subjective in our thinking. Maybe God is the only objective being if it only exists...
I really like the definition that philosophy is pure thinking. Therefore, philosophical theories (i.e all theories) explain how it is done and how the universe works as pure thought. Scientific theories (including psycology) explain how it is done and how the universe works according to the laws of: reproducibility, verifiability and falsifiability. So, when a philosophical theorie fulfills the laws aforementioned become science. Therefore, science is by definition experimental and objective.
Who does not do research in a strictly objective way does not produce science, i.e., not give a any contribution to the increase of the scientific knowledge of humanity. The writers, the poets, the musicians, the painters, etc. they make a big contribution to the increase of world culture but not in scientific terms because all the aforementioned "arts" are obviously subjective.
If someone can prove that science is both consistent and complete so that I do not have to choose, then I will change my point of view immediately.
That being said, subjectivity is not a bad thing. Subjectivity, defines our struggle to understand nature.
I think that the opinions of RG family can be arranged to be published in posters or any other suitable form
I do not believe and I do not say that subjectivity is negative. I say that subjectivity is typical and intrinsically connected to the arts. While objectivity is a necessary and indispensable condition of the sciences. Furthermore, I firmly believe that the use of scientific results is subjective and as such is questionable. Mix water, cement powder and iron, in the appropriate ways and doses, creates reinforced concrete. This is an objective scientific result that is not questionable. Using reinforced concrete to build bridges or to build partition walls between nations is a subjective and therefore questionable fact.
Md. Abdur Rashid , Claire Su-Yeon Park , thank you for sharing your thoughts.
For technical or technological areas it is easier because it restricts possible deviations, but in social areas it is practically impossible
Dear Meaad Kadhum Hassan , Bakhodir S. Okhundedaev , i greatly appreciate your insights.
Dear Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek , I share the perspective with you As my PhD is in Sociology. Thanks for sharing Your insights.
yes, the objectivity is required in scientific research
In principle, I agree with Agnieszka's point of view. However, although I am not a expert of social scieces, I would like to underline, only like small exemplum, that the migration of a multitude of people from the poorest countries to the richest countries is an objective and incontrovertible social phenomenon that can be scientifically explained in a rigorous and objective way. How to remedy this phenomenon is an absolutely subjective fact that depends on the political vision of the world that each person has.
I think yes, it is desirable and a prerequisite. Although I see many researchers loose this character.
I believe that the social sciences can explain why there is the phenomenon of migration with sufficient objectivity to be able to define without any doubt the result of this social research as a scientific result. Redress the lack of food, war, lack of work etc. in the countries of origin or welcoming and integrating migrants in the richer countries is the task of politics and it is a subjective fact and the science no longer plays any role.
Dear Leonardo Cannizzaro , thank you dear colleague for sharing your thoughts.
There are various problems with some of the argumentation proposed here to support the thesis:
'Is “objectivity” possible in research?'
First thing to consider here is the scope of the statement in the proposed form is interpreted generally to be of universal scope. Therefore the answer has to apply to all statements in the universe of discourse.
Also 'to state I saw x' that this is scientific is certainly akin to horoscope statements, they will be true under most interpretations(unless it is warrantly false). To say that scientific statement are of this form is to open the door to stating that ambiguity is accepted in science.
Let us take the converse which is current scientific position. Scientific statements need to be precise in their observation. As they become precise there is more detail that needs to be left out to model the reality being observed. To state that these capture the complexity of reality is a presumptuous position.
Another problem is to take scientific statements in the same footing as mathematical statements (as stated in my previous post I am looking for someone to try to do it. Carnap tried and he faced huge hurdles).
Still another problem is to demarcate science under the rubric of only those that are empirically falsifiable. Most theoretical physics then falls where? That is a problem with the view presented by Popper. From this attack the verifiability and reproducibility also falls into question.
All these points points on science bear heavily on the subject of research objectivity
Logically, this is impossible. We'd need to have an arbiter who is objectively certified capable of judging objectivity; we don't have that arbiter.
Of course we should strive for objectivity - but all too often, the prejudices that defeat our efforts at objectivity are the ones we're not aware of. In my view, the way to get there is to become aware of, and to articulate, one's own position, back-ground, choices and decisions, and allow others to challenge our judgements. In some cases, this will help us grow; in other cases, it will be tedious SJWing which we have to live through.
Numbers unfortunately are no help (at least not in my subject) - even where we have enough information to come to solid numbers, the parsing of those numbers is subjective: Who is a combatant? Who is infantry, who cavalry - how do we count light horse? Who is nobility? Who is feudal levy?
Sorry if I insist and repeat that "scientific research (i.e. the science) is objective by definition". Scientific research that is not objective is called "Metaphysics" and is subjective, that is, questionable as established by the philosophers of the Circle of Vienna mentioned by Arturo. The philosophers of the Vienna Circle and in particular Rudulf Carnap, who was inspired by the ideas of Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, supported the thesis of being able to reduce traditional philosophical disputes to logical-linguistic (Epistemological) problems. It does not seem to me that the philosophers of the Vienna Circle have criticized the fact that scientific research must be objective. The theses of the philosophers of the Vienna Circle have had and still have a great impact on the philosophy of science and analytical philosophy.
Agnieszka,
You have touched a crucial point which would solve more than 90% of disagreement which is a common ground for consensus. But the question arises on whether this consensus implies objectivity. My take is that consensus is only part of objectivity. There is also the correspondence of statements with reality. Statements description of reality are another problem which go to the heart of the problem of objectivity
Science is not by definition objective, that is the subject of multiple debates between realism and antirealism in science. It is also an attempt to trivialize a critical subject within the philosophy of science.
My statement about Carnap is a reflection upon the challenge of calling science objecive. I am in fact criticizing the Vienna Circle's stance precisely
Jürg Gassmann , my perspective is Aligned with you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Agnieszka,
My main objection stems primarily from the use in science of theories, models and laws (an objection clearly delineated in [1]. My criticism goes even further with specific operational issues in the implementation of models and how theories and laws are derived from these.
I am putting some of my views in a book preliminary titled "From the Philosophy to the Science of Technology". My main position starts from a modi fed principle of the bene fit of the doubt from Putnam. What I do is parameterize technological descriptions based on the notion of a metric (one of these implementations is in my patent where I do graphs on descriptions themselves and from these I derive distance measurements. Other algorithms are presented on the book where I do not debate them philosophically, but measure them mathematically). The other principles go on how to foundationally put these principles on solid philosophical grounds. These principles are paving the way for several operational techniques on how to tackle concepts on science. Notwithstanding, I cannot say that these derivational principles are objective but subjective based on the mathematical technique utilized. and this is at the core of my postulations.
[1]Cartwright, Nancy (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
With the utmost respect for all those who have diametrically opposed opinions to mines, I would like to point out that: technology is the application of one or more scientific results (ie technology is the application of the laws of nature discovered by scientific research). For this reason scientific research and laws of nature discovered are objective while technology (ie the application of research results) is subjective. I tried to explain this point of view better even with simple and real examples, for greater clarity, in my previous interventions. I would like that someone to make some examples real and understandable to all, of subjective scientific research.
What it is the universe? I do not know. But I know that the universe begin from the elementary particles called quarks or perhaps from massless particles like photons and at least reaches galaxies. All that is in the middle between a photon and a galaxy (including literature, poetry, music, cinema etc., etc., etc.) constitutes and is part of the universe. In other words: I do not know what the universe is, but I know it extends from the infinitely small to the infinitely large.
Science and philosophy have the same purpose, the same goal: to discover how the universe is made and how it works. Philosophy pursues this objective through pure thought and elaborates logically, self-coherent and self-consistent, philosophical theories (thoughts and conceptions). Science elaborates its own theories also called hypotheses and often adopts theories elaborated by the philosophers. Science submits its hypotheses and philosophical theories to the Galilean laws: reproducibility, verifiability and falsifiability.
The hypotheses and theories that satisfy the aforementioned laws are called laws of nature. The laws of nature explain scientifically how the universe is made and how it works. The set of all the laws of nature discovered so far constitute science. Since the laws of nature are objective, in fact they exist regardless of the existence of man, science is objective (whether you like it or dislike it).
The hypotheses and theories that do not satisfy the aforesaid Galilean laws were and continue to be philosophy. Therefore all that today is science yesterday was philosophy, that is pure thought.
Minimal examples of objective laws of nature: the chemical reaction called, vulgarly, fire would exist even if man did not exist; the gravitational law would exist even if man did not exist; the ability of plants to transform solar energy into living matter would exist even if man did not exist; the respondent conditioning of Plavov would exist even if man did not exist; in order not to bore anyone I stop here but I can continue to list examples of nature laws objective for all the time I still have left to live.
The use of laws of nature ie technology is obviously subjective. Example: Some people called bakers use the law of nature called fire to make bread, other people called pyromaniacs use the same law of nature to burn the woods. For all these reasons and for many others also ethical the science, that is the set of all laws of nature, is objective. Technology, that is the use of laws of nature, is subjective.
For all
Please refer to :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
for a detailed review of the subject of objectivity as a matter of discussion and not definition. The need to have reviewed the previous work in this matter is as important as the opinions expressed and not dismiss them as definitional triviality and show of lack of treating this discussion without researching the subject first.
Also, please refer to the following references for a discussion on the errors of treating technology as applied science. While this was a position given by Bunge, there are no causal relationships between science and technology. Please refer to the list below for reference.
[1] Bijker, W. E. (1986). The Nature of Technological Knowledge: Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant?.
[2]McClellan III, J. E., & Dorn, H. (2015). Science and technology in world history: an introduction. JHU Press.
[3]Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge University Press.
[4] Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it (Vol. 141). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
From today, I resume working and therefore I do not have much time to devote to this very important discussion on RG. I have read, very quickly and not with due attention that all philosophical reflections need, the document cited by Arturo. The document never contains the word "subjectivity" and in extreme synthesis states that the objectivity in science is a value that must always be pursued and safeguarded.
The last opinion, that I share and endorse, it is formulated by philosophers and is a philosophical reasoning in the sense of "pure thought". However, those who, like me, deal with experimental research and environmental monitoring every day have the need to define absolutely "objective" the research. Otherwise, every day there will be someone, very powerful, who says climate change exists only in science fiction movies and many other things of this kind that involve unimaginable consequences for all living beings of the world. I do not make it a personal matter. Nevertheless, to define science, even only minimally "subjective", means to discredit it for the benefit of those who do business by speculating on ignorance.
Dear Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek and Leonardo Cannizzaro , thank you so much for valuable additions to this discussion, I have enjoyed your arguments.
The objective of scientific research is always to search for the truth. Maybe the result of this is finding new objectivity based on recent scientific findings.
We have received a variety of answers because RG colleagues are from a variety of disciplines.
Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek informed me of the existence of this question. Unfortunately I'm very late to this discussion, but let me add my view point. Can research be objective? Yes and no. Statistical analysis is an objective way to analyze how data fits a given model. If we have a rigorous model, the statistical test(s) that is used will be determined by that model, and the test will give us an objective result: anyone with the model and the test will reach the exact same conclusion.
In that respect, we can make research objective. However, our decision to create and use a specific model will still be subjective. Moreover, the narrative that we attach to our model and findings will be subjective. I think that's okay, so long as we can still identify where our model and test end and the narrative begins, so that we can continue objectively analyzing it in the future.
I think first of all we should clarify the meaning of objectivity. If we imply under this term the position of a researcher to work honestly and make conclusions based solely on data, this is of course possible. However in any case our conclusions are subjective views, we always look at problems from a cartain point, we are not able to be above. So, our conclusions are subjective. It is simply impossible, that they were not. As a historian I see this problem in this way.
Mariam Chkhartishvili I think that's conflating objectivity with honesty. And as Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek said, it seems that "what is objectivity" has already been addressed. But if we want to go back, then perhaps we can say that a process is objective iff given the same method of evaluation and data, the same conclusion tends to be reached. The "tends to" allows for bias within the process, so long as the overall process would converge towards the same conclusion.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books