Is science objective or subjective?

is it a human endeavour or not? if it is a human endeavour it is subjective. There is a ton of writing on this actually; that much of it attempts to defend objectivity should tell you that it isn't objective.

I also believe it is subjective. The disciples work with the theories of the masters, and when they become masters it is hard for them to admit that the theories that they have built their academic careers are doubtful.

Science is led by subjective drive to create objective models.

It is not a question for answering yes and no: Concerning the exact natural sciences and most parts of mathematics, science really is objective - pure gold is gold and can be proofed to be nothing else. Concerning the humanities, you should expect that their results are more than individual ideas although they are based on subjective research. It seems to me to be common sense of the humanities to expect research results which are intersubjectively verifiable (using the same method in the same field for working on the same question, different researchers should come to fully comparable results).

Devojit, I would recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's book THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, originally published in 1962, because of its huge impact a fourth expanded edition was published in 2012. Kuhn argues that while scientists seek to pursue objective research within a given paradigm (framework of thinking) most ignore anomalies until someone develops a new paradigm that can take them into account. The analysis he developed in his previous work on the history of science, e.g., on Copernicus and his "revolution". In other words, the questions scientists ask and the methods they choose are subjective choices that have clearly evolved over time. In terms of your question, yes "social needs" change over time, as do those with the power to define them, and so the direction in which scientific research is pushed (motivated, funded) changes over time. Some questions are asked, others are ignored. Some methods are used, others are not. Subjective choices are made - by institutions and the individuals who manage them. Pretending "all science is objective" ignores real history and concrete historical circumstances that have been shaping science throughout its history.

The original question is misguided. Science did not develop on its own and all by itself. It developed in tandem with magic and the occult, and also with philosophy ('natural science') and religion (the natural world as God's 'Book of Nature' which needed to be understood). The links between alchemy and the development of chemistry have been known for some time, for example. Marx argued for 'one science', and I think he was on the right lines here, and what we take as science today is neither purely 'objective' or 'subjective'. The original question sets up a false dichotomy. Of course, if you argue that civilisation has social and other needs which must be catered for (and science aids the fulfilment of such needs) then you step into transhistoricism. I would cut out the notion of civilisation and substitute it for different social formations (e.g. feudalism, capitalism) in order to arrive at the position where societal needs are related to these particular modes of society, and hence this shows the historical role of science in forms of society. Next, I would get rid of the notion of 'needs', which easily brings with it functionalist theory, which is inherently conservative and undynamic.

Glenn Rikowski

London, 30th December 2018

What is objectivity but inter-subjective agreement within a paradigm and a historical context?

Science is mere limited subjective knowledge. Covid-19 is an eyeopener