Is science entirely objective and value-free with no subjectivity in it?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
thank you question does science deal with facts alone is science value free and that is why it is entirely objective not subjective answer this is a complicated question because science does look at the what we could say the mathematically measurable objectively quantifiable parameters of the universe and try to make sense of them but when scientists propose a theory it is not that they are entirely objective about it in conception scientists do separate it is and ought and they say they are simply dealing with the domain of facts what is and not values of what they think or how something should be that they say is not their domain ought are questions of morality and science is essentially immoral although scientists speak in concept like that in actuality they do not live like that for example when a scientist gets a theory an idea that they strongly think is true they think so even if it is they don’t have the empirical proof for it so for example when Einstein proposed a theory of relativity special relativity he felt strongly that this was too good to be not true and although at that time there was no empirical proof for that theory still he postulated it and was convinced about his truth personally and initially some experiments which are those conducted by Miller seem to indicate that this theory was wrong and his experimental critic DC Miller when he said it was wrong Einstein said that he did not accept the findings of Miller although at that time he could not say for sure what was wrong with Miller’s findings so here we have something that is striking that one gets a scientist one of the most prominent scientists in recent times gets a simple theory is right without any empirical proof for it and even with the current scientific science saying that it was empirically not true at least one particular set of experimental research saying it is not true so that means scientists are not entirely objective in their functioning even if some of them claim to be there is the element of inclusion of inspiration wherein one gets a gut feeling that this is right and the empirical evidence now it is not that every gut feeling that a scientist gets always is right but that is not the point the point is not whether whether one’s insight, intuition, inspiration, gut feeling whatever be the name used for it is right or wrong and the point is it has been of course for many eminent scientists their gut feeling has turned out to be right on remarkably large number of occasions but even if we don’t consider that to be true because we focus on the times when it is not true but still the overall point remains that the key factor here is that there is no shortcut to or there is no straight path to value free knowledge that is only objective because even when we look at facts which are objective and even if we assume for the matter of sakes that reality can be explained in terms of objective facts alone or we can observe in terms of objective facts alone but still the theory that we use to explain those objective facts at least before the theory is empirically established mathematically proven the theory is a the theory’s only value is the value that the speaker is given, the proposer of the theory has to it, it has not been empirically proven and often it is the strength of conviction of the speaker that pushes the theory forward till it eventually is proven to be right by subsequent experiments which are often persisted with even if the initial experiments don’t seem to be supporting the theory so in that sense to say that science is value free is not an accurate reflection of how science actually works Thank you