subject: How Objective Is Science? [print this page] How Objective Is Science? How Objective Is Science?
Scientists pride themselves on their objectivity. In fact, the subjective supposedly has no place in the process of scientific verification at all. There is a hypothesis that is based on facts and suppositions that have already been established, and the hypothesis then undergoes rigorous experimentation, testing, observation, and verification before it finally released out into the world as a 'fact.' Working theories are treated in a similar, though modified, way.
In scientific circles, to suggest that science may in fact be based on subjective emotions would amount to heresy. But that might very well be the case. One of my favorite examples is the myth of Newton's apple. That an apple, falling from a tree and hitting the head of a young scientist should inspire him to go on to rewrite the entire physical laws of the universe is tremendously large and remarkable leap indeed. What 'exactly' was it that, in a flash, gave Newton the basic insight that would change the course of history.
Another great example that is actually recorded for our benefit is Einstein's series of 'floating experiments.' As a bored patent clerk, Einstein spent a good deal of his time imaging himself in space, observing the earth and the effects of energy upon mass, among other things. These 'experiments' eventually led to the theory of relativity and nuclear power.
Developments in science are often thought to come about through inspiration. No one has questioned or denied this. Yet, what does inspiration have anything at all to do with objectivity? Isn't inspiration in the world of the mysterious emotive phenomenon known as creativity? There is the familiar caricature of the light bulb going on in someone's head that has a new, brilliant idea. But where does it come from? It's as subjective as I can imagine.
