Breanna Zwart
Contribution Paper
December 10, 2004
76-101D
Objectivity in Science
The power of science in our culture has come a long way. Today, science
has the ability to become technology, an area that has a high budget in the
majority of American homes. Scientific advances lead to many changes in
society; from cloning to genetically hybrid foods. Society accepts the majority of
the changes, hungry for more. Yet, is there enough questioning of what is going
on? Do people really even know what is going on? [What is the problem?]
Science is the pursuit of truth. The question is truth for whom? The rhetoric of
science is that is free of biases. …[science is masked in a cloak of objectivity,
but….. And…[what is the danger of being cloaked as objective, not objective
and also powerful?] Objectivity is an ideal that is necessary, although as a goal,
it is not attainable.
In “The Nature of Science” author/astronomer Edwin Hubble recognizes
the importance of science in society. He feels that science does not become
political until it is applied; the practice of science itself is objective. According
to Hubble, a scientist achieves objectivity when “driven by sheer curiosity…not
to control [the world], not to reform it, [but] merely to understand it” (Hubble
8). When presenting knowledge to be truth, objectivity is a sizable factor at the
very least. Nevertheless, Hubble believed, along with many other scientists,
1
that objectivity is an attainable goal for science. [hold off on this: While
objectivity is a worthy goal, it cannot be achieved. Nonetheless, the notion of
objectivity should be retained to protect science from hijacking ideology and
interest groups.]
Despite the fact that Hubble is earnest in the above convictions, the
reader must think of reality. The level of difficulty [the kind of separation from
the social that] he demands from scientist[s] is mind-boggling [unrealistic].
Each human being has a belief system, a culture, values, judgments; they are
the building blocks of your identity. In the article, “A Reasonable Skepticism”
Richard Lewontin discusses science and its lack of objectivity. Subjectivity in
science begins at science’s roots. “Scientists do not begin life as scientist, after
all, but as social beings immersed in a family, a state, a productive structure”
(Reasonable Skepticism 4). Scientists have lives and experiences that each
scientist has his or her own paradigm of nature [I don’t understand this
sentence—pls. rephrase]. The destruction of objectivity swells when one
considers the person or groups that invest their time, money, and objectives
into science. To think that projects in science are explored and funded for the
purpose of curiosity in its purest sense is objectionable to say the least. A
person must remember that “science is molded by society because it is a
human productive activity that takes time and money and so is guided by and
directed by those forces in the world that have control over money and time”
(Reasonable Skepticism 3).
2
David Barnes discusses a pictorial model of knowledge that each person
is born with in his article “The Problem with Knowledge.” [not born with but
indoctrinated into] Having pre- conceived notions disrupts the possibility of any
objectivity. [Rather than representing a correspondence with reality,] Barnes
argues that the pictorial model is “constructed from conventions available as
the resources of some culture or sub-culture” (Barnes, 4). The representations
are not mirrored, but contrived from culture. Pictorial representations in
science are like paintings; both are rely on conventions, “[i]ncreasingly,
knowledge is being treated as essentially social, as a part of the culture which
it is transmitted from generation to generation, and as something which is
actively developed and modified in response to practical contingencies” (Barnes
2). How does one completely remove oneself from his or her
environment/culture? In truth, you cannot. A person cannot be raised outside
of society to be objective and devoid of all biases. [good!]
The article, “Science Seen through a Feminist Prism,” written by Marion
Namenwirth, agrees that that objectivity in science is not present. According to
Namenwirth “because science evolved within a patriarchal society, it took on a
decidedly masculine tone and became burdened and distorted by a pervasive
male bias. Namenwirth defines science as a “system of procedures for
gathering, verifying, and systemizing information about reality”
(Namenwirth18). How can ‘information about reality” be true and objective
when the majority of the people who validate the information are white males;
the minority in reality.
3
The importance of recognizing the failure of science obtaining objectivity
cannot be stressed enough. [why is this failure important?] In spite of this,
objectivity must remain a value in science. Without the goal, the reaching, the
stretching for objectivity, science would be in worse off. [revise] why? Bias
can often begin in the laboratory when forming a hypothesis. According to Sir
Francis Bacon’s scientific method, the hypothesis affects the procedure and
ultimately the results. [thus? Explain…tell us how to guard against faulty
hypotheses here…outsiders evaluate them?? Why necessary?] On a larger
scale, maintaining objectivity as an ideal protects knowledge from being overtly
motivated by particular and otherwise detestable social interest[s]. This type of
behavior was written about in another article authored by Lewontin,
“Dishonesty in Science.” This article articulates the Bush administration’s
many wrong doings in the manipulating scientific findings “in the interest of its
own ideological and political ends” (Dishonesty in Science 2). Such
manipulations include “ the National Cancer Institute [being] directed to post a
claim on its Web site that abortion promotes breast cancer although a large
study had shown no such connection between them” (Dishonesty in Science 3).
The Bush administration also suppressed scientific findings to “support a
conservative religious ideology” (Dishonesty in Science, 3). This statement was
made very clear when Lewontin discussed a situation at the Centers for
Disease Control:
““In order to demonstrate that abstinence-only
programs were effective, the Bush administration
instructed the Centers for Disease Control not to follow
4
the actual birth rate for participants in an abstinence
program. In order to hide the effectiveness of condom
use in preventing HIV infection, the CDC was directed
to emphasize condom failure rates in its educational
material” (Dishonesty in Science 3).
If the populace believes the results are objective and true, serious
consequences will are inevitable. Without any discussion, without any type of
checks and balances, authoritarianism ensues. [tell why the notion of
objectivity is necessary, here]
In “Nazi Politics and the Politics of knowledge” author Robert Proctor
discusses that Nazi science was politicized to a degree. [explain this first]
Another way to look at is that “Nazis depoliticized science by destroying the
possibility of political debate and controversy” (Proctor, 353). [more on Nazi
science first]
Political debate around science was in clear view for the 2004 presidential
election. When Ronald Reagan, Jr. spoke at the Democratic National
Convention about stem cell research versus his own party’s convention, a loud
statement was being made. Under the Nazi regime, however, discussions were
silenced “[a]uthoritarian science… replaced what had been …a vigorous spirit
of politicized debate in and around the sciences” (Proctor, 353). The Nazi
regime was highly subjective and pursued science to “draw upon the imagery,
results, and authority of science” (Proctor 355). Authoritarian science is one
that is blatantly manipulated to support an ideology and smothered across
society; it is science with no debate and no checks and balances. [you need talk
5
about how what is going in the contemporary is both like and unlike Nazi
science…]
In order to prevent dishonesty in science, objectivity has to be in an
environment of debate. People have to be aware not only of achievements in the
scientific community, but also of its failings. [failings cannot be judged as such
without a notion of objectivity] A person must be aware that science, in
addition to being a part of society, is carried out by humans, [who are social
beings with interests, agendas, predispositions, etc.]. Thus, some type of bias
and/or agenda should be suspected rather than complete acceptance. [fix
this] On the other hand, if scientists’ claims are unquestioned, they may drape
their scientific activities in claims of neutrality, detachment, and objectivity, scientists
augment the perceived importance of their views, absolve themselves of social
responsibility for the applications of their work, and leave their (unconscious) minds
wide open to political and cultural assumptions. Such hidden influences and biases are
particularly insidious in science because the cultural heritage of the practitioners is so
uniform as to make these influences very difficult to detect and unlikely to be brought to
light or counter balanced by the work of other scientists with different attitudes. Instead,
the biases themselves become part of a stifling science-culture, while scientists firmly
believe that as long as they are not conscious of any bias or political agenda, they are
neutral and objective, when in fact they arc only unconscious.
People need to rethink the definition of objectivity and how it is carried out
in science. With the knowledge of objectivity as an unattainable goal, a person
is more likely to contemplate news/claims from the scientific community.
Knowledge “promotes a reasonable skepticism” which can lead to debate. The
goal of objectivity and debate are two essential factors that will protect science
and ultimately society as a whole against authoritarian science and abuse.
6
It is imperative to maintain objectivity as the ultimate goal in science and
it is of equal importance to know that that goal will never completely be
achieved. Science plays [is] a lead[ing] character in society today, which is why
objectivity is needed to protect ourselves. People cannot be naïve and ignorant;
knowledge is essential to survival.
7