And where do these scientists to whom you refer say they are 'claiming' to be objective? If a scientist presents evidence for something and expects or wishes it to be taken seriously and objectively, such a 'claim' is unnecessary, since the evidence presented will either show the results to be objective or not.Quote
When a scientist claims to be "objective", he's got a measure in mind: time, distance, size, shape, pitch, tone, etc. So he uses the term sparingly--since many things can't be measured.
Or she, presumably.Quote
One of the things he
And any scientist worth paying attention to and whose work is established as being objective knows that at any time this conclusion or decision or Theory is open to challenge, revision, improvement, correction, etc, and is never 100% proved.Quote
values the most, truth, can't be measured at all. it's the motto of CalTech: "The truth shall make you free". Very similar to John 8:32 in the Bible.
quote] The scientist is very careful in using the term, "objective." Non scientists often conflate the scientific with the lawyerly, and talk about "objective evidence," "facts," and "scientific proof." Doesn't make sense to the scientist. [/quote]
And that sentence doesn't make much sense either.
A pity you don’t try doing that in relation to your totally faith belief.Quote
Using a word like "objective" is very dangerous. That's why scientists retreat to mathematics as much as possible.