I've browsed this board for a few seconds and I think I can say that I hope the mods never follow any of your advice. Hiro pls delete
>>470526
Opinion noted in the log. Do you have a goddamned question?
>>470528
Yes, why is objectivity desirable?
>>470532
First of all, is objectivity desirable in the first place?
In hard sciences yes, in social sciences like psychology not so much.
Why is it desirable at all? Well, reality sure as hell isn't relative to your point of reference. A consensus of individuals affirming properties of the world around you has implications.
>>470545
>In hard sciences yes
why?
>>470547
Many central debates in the philosophy of science have, in one way or another, to do with objectivity: confirmation and the problem of induction; theory choice and scientific change; realism; scientific explanation; experimentation; measurement and quantification; evidence and the foundations of statistics; evidence-based science; feminism and values in science. Understanding the role of objectivity in science is therefore integral to a full appreciation of these debates.
>>470551
Does this have anything to do with why aussies are the worst shitposters or why /v/ is butthurt about everything?
>>470526
I hope the mods never follow your advice then op
>>470551
>to do with objectivity
But you're not answering why. Why would it not be better if science was subjective?
>>470575
"Better" is subjective. Science is not. In everyday discussions of ethics, being objective usually means applying the rules fairly and treating everyone the same rather than showing favoritism to one party or another. Is this what scientists have in mind when they voice their commitment to objectivity? Perhaps in part. It could be connected to applying “the rules” of science (i.e., the scientific method) fairly and not letting bias creep into the production of scientific knowledge. Ultimately the idea of how to apply objectivity to science is as subjective as the psychology of the scientist.
