Introduction
The history of objectivity of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century. The objectivity of science was based on the truth, facts and knowledge. It was practiced by scientific atlas founders so as to articulate the presentations of the meaning of nature.
The need by scientists to restrain themselves from using their individual bias in the description of nature was the fundamental driving force behind scientific objectivity.
The guiding principle in scientific objectivity has always been and will always be ensuring that knowledge is safeguarded from biased individual representation.
Science is founded on the objective analysis evaluation and presentation of scientific, empirical data based on the facts observed (Kuhn, 1973, para. 3).
Scientific objectivity is the term given to the practice of science through which different facts are investigated and subsequently used to explain different untruths. The elimination of personal biases and emotional commitment are the core of scientific objectivity.
Objectivity has been used as a standard of measure in science for quite some time. The objectivity of science is closely associated with the ability to test the facts.
For science to be considered to be objective, measurement of facts must be disseminated from one person to another. The test of objectivity encompasses other various tests.
It has been observed that the classification of traditional objectivity overlooks numerous elements (Kuhn, 1973, para. 8). Therefore, objectivity of science follows certain values and facts.
Scientific objectivity, values, or facts
The test of objectivity has various subjective decisions which make the entire measurement involve reductionist process. On the other hand, the measurement of these methods will form part of the objective test related to the outcome of the facts.
A fundamental element of science, which is emphasized by a lot of scientists, is that, emphasis is placed on the facts but not the values involved. This distinction has been openly revealed since science exists on the objective reality and while values do not.
This perception enables scientists to perceive the field of science as a domain of permanent knowledge, which must be identified. The notion of science being free from value has been highly contested by sociologists and scientists.
The criticism is based on the methods used to arrive at several scientific conclusions (Restivo, 2011, p. 21).
There are various misconceptions whereby the value of free nation is claimed to have been overrated and overstated by scientists. The ideology of relativism between science and objectivity has been held to be misleading.
There are those scientists who contend that the sciences have values meant to assist in arriving at reliable knowledge free from effects of bias. An element of bias would lead to unreliable knowledge.
The intersection of knowledge and values has been identified. The intersection of knowledge and values has provided robust facts. The diversity of values promotes accepted principles (Polifroni & Welch, 1999, p. 18).
It is still contested that the notion of science being pure and not relying on values is highly misleading. It is known that science promotes values such as reliability, accuracy and precision.
On the other hand, scientists are said to value novelty and simplicity of concepts. It has widely been argued that the pursuit of science is a value based venture.
There is a need to consider science and how it operates in the development of the material world to acquire and develop knowledge. However, this may be unreasonable not to weigh the stakes involved.
Scientific objectivity proves that values are not excluded from the quest for knowledge in science. In its core components, science is not only made up of freedom but also of responsibilities.
The fundamental elements, which are noticeable, in scientific objectivity, have a refutable hypothesis. The hypothesis must be backed with relevant evidence.
Finally, the results should be presented in a way that they are accessible and can be subjected to empirical testing by all individuals with a vested interest in science (Okasha, 2002, p. 43).
It is the underlying core values that limit a scientific research from replicating someone else’s work while expecting different results. The standards placed on research have made it easy to identify whenever certain conditions have been breached.
The use of refutable hypothesis brings the scientific objectivity to a point that the knowledge identified is placed in an objective, rigorous test. The strict requirements that the information offered should be tested can be used to promote scientific reputations.
Some scientists will gain wide use of reputation due to their knowledge of documentation. The scientific field has automatic activities (Laudan, 1983, p. 16).
The objectivity of science is not limitless since it has numerous limiting factors. Objectivity has numerous problems, which are associated, with metaphysics. This has been mainly linked to the objectivity of the mind.
The objectivity of the mind exists with several ethics, and a consideration of these ethics is the account of the objectivity. It follows that objectivity is a method of understanding whereby knowledge and beliefs are placed in a primary sense of understanding.
The main truths that can be placed in the above definition qualify to be a formation of conception. The old view, which is to be regarded as subjective, yields an objective conception (Keller, 2009, p. 16).
The objectivity test has been said to yield the expected results, which have been described by some scientists as false objectivity. The perception of the larger reality supposes that we are to be considered as being part of the larger reality in the objective standpoint.
The implication of the statement above implies that there is a connection between reality and objectivity but the connection could be remarkably small. The question as to whether the mind and self-form part of the objective reality remains unanswered.
The objective status in the mind creates a mental status which tends to be general. The objectivity of the mind dictates that there is a significant link between the brain objectivity and the day to day actions in one’s life.
The physical properties define the scope of the mind objectivity. The definition given to the physical world has been said to emanate from a standpoint of human beings perceptions (Okruhlk, n. d).
The very evidence that every scientist begins to work on every day is based on the perceptions of individuals and their rational understanding of different events in the physical sphere.
That clearly supports the assertion that objective conception is not without origin, but it has a starting point and reliable features. The properties of the perpetual aspects of objective science are better understood when the beginning is traceable.
The mind has the rational consciousness, which gets the information, and basing on this information, a perpetual point of view is taken. As proven conception of objectivity has its own difficulties and limits as it was earlier mentioned.
In the same way that the brain has a limit to the affairs going around it, the brain too has notable difficulties when seeking a clear understanding of reality (McMullin, n. d).
The objectivity is limited by the fact that the interpretation of different perceptions, which cannot be severed from the occurrences due to the physical interactions.
The mention of mental activity in the objectivity of science is to make sure that all perceptions and viewpoints are concurrent with the practice. Reality objectivity leads to conclusions that so perceptions have a dominating role in the physical world.
Scientists have at numerous situations considered the objectivity to be a myth which they have continuously sought to affirm or dispute.
The mode of arriving at substantial results too has been placed on the basis of the said consideration (Fleming, 2004, p. 17).
The scientific objectivity has existed with numerous criticisms from scientists and sociologists. There are scientists who have argued that the scientific objectivity among many scientists has occurred in the form of an illusion.
The objectivity advocated by scientists has been said to be hard to achieve. The objectivity applicability in the real world is held to be impossible, but such notions have continuously been disputed (Kuhn, 1973, para. 9).
Conclusion
It is evident that the objectivity of science follows certain values and facts. The scientific objectivity as put across by different scientists has many elements and many scientists have tried to justify the existence of the main features.
In some instances, it has been asserted that objectivity does exist without values, but that assertion has been widely disputed.
The existence of values such as novelty in the objectivity of science has been a pillar to the contention that there are no values in scientific objectivity. However, there are many problems that scientific objectivity ought to deal with accurately.
References
McMullin, E. Rationality and Paradigm change in science. Web.
Fleming, B. E. (2004). Science and the self: The scale of knowledge. Dallas [u.a.: Univ. Press of America.
Longino, H. Values and Objectivity. Web.
Okruhlk, K. Gender and biological sciences. Web.
Keller, A. C. (2009). Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. (1973). Objectivity, Value judgment and Theory choice. Web.
Laudan, L. (1983). Dissecting the Holist Picture of Scientific Change. Web.
Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Polifroni, E. C., & Welch, M. (1999). Perspectives on philosophy of science in nursing: An historical and contemporary anthology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Restivo, S. P. (2011). Red, black, and objective: Science, sociology, and anarchism. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.