Are scientific knowledge objective knowledge, and can they ever be?

Since the speed of light is independent of the reference frame of which the light is travelling in, an event could appear to be different to different people. Are the two different versions of the same event both truth? Or is only one of them true. How can we even tell what really happened when we have two versions that are both valid from the two different perspectives?Can scientific knowledge be objective knowledge which are independent of our perceptions?*note, please don't involve religion in this.

Well if the event is different to two different people then argueably one person saw the truth and another person saw a distortion of the truth. The difference can be so finite in some occassions that neither will see the absolute truth and both will see a distortion of what happened. In everyday life we don't see the absolute truth because our eyes are not perfect.

If science wasn't objective, unwilling to change, it would never progress and we would never have science. Just because two theses were presented, equally doesn't make them correct. It equally doesn't make them incorrect, which is the beautiful thing about science.

Nothing is correct or incorrect. So question answered.

Replying to #4

Hehe! This means this statement is neither correct nor incorrect! :PBesides, that's nonsense. It's hard to be sure if something is correct or incorrect, but if you build it on enough accepted assumptions, it is possible to show that something is correct or incorrect.

I think that science is just uncover the covered.
That means, it can change periodically, and the latest statement is considered "the truth"
This world is really large you know, even if we try to research it 'till the end of the world, it'll never finished.

allot is science is out of are perception now anyway with computers and equipment that do it for us and can confirm what we think or know already.also science is always objective that is it's main credo and it says if anyone can come up with a better explanation that holds up against peer review then we can update our knowledge.are lives are entirely based on our perceptions the bigest reason we all have different opinions.
but science owes it's self to cutting through the crap and looking at things objectively from the evidence we can gain and forming knowledge based on that.i think whether it is all based on our perceptions or not it is the only thing we can say is objectively true as we have no evidence of anything being the alternative. and finally sceice never ever cames it's self to be the "truth" it is only the truth as we know it, the main reason why all scentific study no matter how undeniable and pefect in our understanding is still preceded by the words "the theory of"

If scientific knowlege is updated then the version before the update can't be considered as objective knowledge. I don't think any scientist would rule out the possibility of update to our current scientific knowledge. So is there any way for us to tell if our "current" version or any future version is the ultimate unchangeable version? If we can't tell, then can we ever know the objective knowledge which should never be updated. Is it even possible for us to obtain that objective knowledge?As for the example I mentioned in my original post, consider the following:We have a train that goes in a straight line from west to east at constant speed. Now let's have one person board the train and one person stand outside of the train on the ground. On the train, we put a light source between a point A and a point B on the floor of the train so that the distance from the light source to both points are equal. We let the light source shoot light beams out to its left (west) and its right (east) toward point A and point B. A <-------- Source of light --------> B
west east*The two arrows represent the two light beamsIf the person on the train doesn't know that he is on a train and he measures the time it takes for the light to reach point A and point B, he would find that the light beams would hit those two points at the exact same time. This makes sense to him, because the distance from point A to the source of light equals to the distance from point B to the source of light, and the two light beams travel at the same speed (speed of light is constant). Now lets have the person outside of the train to measure the time it takes for the two beams to reach the two points. Since the train is moving from west to east with constant speed, the light beam going toward point A would hit point A before the other one can hit point B. So the person outside of the train would find out that the two light beams would hit the two points at different times. So the person in the train measures a different result from the person outside of the train. Is one of them more correct than the other? Or are the results measured from the two different reference frames (perspectives) both valid? For this event, anyone would have to measure from a reference frame. If the reference frames are different, then the results can be different, so which one of the many versions of results is the "correct" one. I don't think we can know what really happened in this event, because to have an experiment here, everyone would need to pick a perspective. Unless all of the different results are true, there is no way for us to have the "real" result.

it is objective to the current level of evidence gained.objectivity does not mean it's perfect nor that it's correct. objectivity has nothing to do with how right something is right or wrong that not it's definition.

Replying to #9

The question was asked assuming that objective knowledge referrs to the "absolute truth". This is not a thread dedicated to figure out the definition of objectivity.

objectivity does not affect how true something is.and the plain answer to is science objective knowledge? yes because that is the way it is studied and it never claims anything to be "absolute truth". as i described in the fact that all study is preceded by "the theory of"we can never say something is absolutely true. we can only build on the evidence we acquire and science does that.

709zzy · #8If scientific knowlege is updated then the version before the update can't be considered as objective knowledge. I don't think any scientist would rule out the possibility of update to our current scientific knowledge. So is there any way for us to tell if our "current" version or any future version is the ultimate unchangeable version? If we can't tell, then can we ever know the objective knowledge which should never be updated. Is it even possible for us to obtain that objective knowledge?As for the example I mentioned in my original post, consider the following:We have a train that goes in a straight line from west to east at constant speed. Now let's have one person board the train and one person stand outside of the train on the ground. On the train, we put a light source between a point A and a point B on the floor of the train so that the distance from the light source to both points are equal. We let the light source shoot light beams out to its left (west) and its right (east) toward point A and point B. A <-------- Source of light --------> B
west east*The two arrows represent the two light beamsIf the person on the train doesn't know that he is on a train and he measures the time it takes for the light to reach point A and point B, he would find that the light beams would hit those two points at the exact same time. This makes sense to him, because the distance from point A to the source of light equals to the distance from point B to the source of light, and the two light beams travel at the same speed (speed of light is constant). Now lets have the person outside of the train to measure the time it takes for the two beams to reach the two points. Since the train is moving from west to east with constant speed, the light beam going toward point A would hit point A before the other one can hit point B. So the person outside of the train would find out that the two light beams would hit the two points at different times. So the person in the train measures a different result from the person outside of the train. Is one of them more correct than the other? Or are the results measured from the two different reference frames (perspectives) both valid? For this event, anyone would have to measure from a reference frame. If the reference frames are different, then the results can be different, so which one of the many versions of results is the "correct" one. I don't think we can know what really happened in this event, because to have an experiment here, everyone would need to pick a perspective. Unless all of the different results are true, there is no way for us to have the "real" result.

The light would hit both A and B at the same time in both cases as the points are inside the train.

709zzyIf the reference frames are different, then the results can be different, so which one of the many versions of results is the "correct" one. I don't think we can know what really happened in this event, because to have an experiment here, everyone would need to pick a perspective. Unless all of the different results are true, there is no way for us to have the "real" result.

logical fallecy alert!!no thats wrong and not a scientic nor an objective experiment. to be objective you do not pick one perspective you look at a groups of evidence through many experiments and come to a conculsion.also even if that would be a valid experiment when putting it in relivance to is our knowledge thus far correct it does not work as all our knoledge is only from the one perspective, we are either the man on the train or we are the one on the out side, if we had evidence evidence from both sides then we may come to a new conclusion.

equitypetey · #11objectivity does not affect how true something is.and the plain answer to is science objective knowledge? yes because that is the way it is studied and it never claims anything to be "absolute truth". as i described in the fact that all study is preceded by "the theory of"we can never say something is absolutely true. we can only build on the evidence we acquire and science does that.

The issue I brought up is concerning objective knowledge, not objectivity.One of the things that we need to focus on first is "knowledge".
My opinion is that if something is actually known, then it cannot be false. An example from wikipedia illustrates this. Let's say that a person believes that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and he attempts to cross it. Unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that the person believed that the bridge was safe (from past experience maybe), but that belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe. So he doesn't have the knowledge that the bridge was safe. So to have an objective knowledge, shouldn't it be true? So the moment something thought to be an objective knowledge is updated, that something should cease to be an objective knowledge. I agree that science pursues objective knowledge, but I don't think scientific knowledge can ever be objective knowledge.Another problem is illustrated by the test mentioned in my previous post. The two different people would measure different results just because they have different reference frames (in different perspectives).

Replying to #13

In many scientific experiments, reference frames need to be chosen in order for calculations to be done (such as the floor in a room), so I have no idea why you think it is wrong to do that. Even in math you have X-Y coordinate system as one of the reference frame which you can use.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To gaynorvader:The light would actually not hit both A and B at the same time, because the speed of light is independent of reference frame. So unlike other moving objects on the train where their speed are increased by the train itself, light's speed never changes. Thus from the point of view of the person outside the train, point A would move toward the light beam shooting toward the west, and point B would move away from the light beam shooting toward the east. For the person in the train however, the light would hit both points at the same time. This is due to the fact that the person in the train has the floor in the train as the reference frame while the person outside the train has the ground as the reference frame.*btw, the experiment described in my original post is based on a similar thought experiment done by Alber Einstein in 1917.

i know what your talking about in the Einstein and that was to do with the his theory of relativity (which is a scientific field that has been updated many times, as Einstein's was one of the updates)a better example if this is the theory you are suggesting:
is a man fires a gun standing still the bullet will travel at a certain speed
another man fires a gun while traveling in a car at speed, that bullet will be traveling at the speed+the speed of the car.the problem is that your example has the one man inside and one outside, but it is the same train and the same light so both men will infact see the same result.I'm still a bit worried about your understanding of objectivity within science and wanting things to be absolutes.your next example for knowledge does not work.
if he had past experience that the bridge was safe his knowledge was sound and objective using it many times knowing that it had been safe previously.
so up to that point his knowledge was correct, the bridge had supported him thus far so he wasn't wrong.the bridges degradation is a different factor in the equation.
the bridge breaking does not impact on weather he was wrong about the bridge as he did not have any evidence of it being unsafe to that point.if he never having experienced that bridge carry his weight and using the assumption that all bridges can carry weight, then his assumptions (based on knowledge about bridges) would have been incorrect about that specific bridge but not about bridges in general.

Replying to #15

No, your example is completely different from the example I used. It is not better in any way at all. Apparently, you have misunderstood my example. Unlike light, the speed of bullets are not independent of reference frames, so of course for your example, the man inside and the man outside of the train will measure the same result.As for the bridge example, the bridge breaking does impact on whether the man is right or wrong about believing in the safety of the bridge. When the bridge breaks, the man is wrong in believing about the safety of the bridge. The man didn't actually know that the bridge is safe, he merely believes in that.Objectivity would mean that something is independent of different perspectives. Scientific knowledge gained through experiments can be affected and are affected by the simple act of observation. So just by observing something, you have already changed the result of the experiment. Since observation is essential in experiments, I don't think that it is even possible to gain scientific knowledge through experiments and have that knowledge to be independent of the subject who studies it.

You can't. All knowledge is theoretically (and in practice) undefined until observed or measured in some manner. In the possession of knowledge, therefore, it it impossible to obtain an objective viewpoint on it, as the very nature of knowledge requires someone to observe it for it to be classed as knowledge.

its not comparing apples and oranges at all, Einstein used a very similar explanation i think if i recall when he thew his wet sock after sailing with his son (although my memory is vague) but the principle was that if light was traveling from a moving object it would travel it the speed of light plus the the speed of the object.your example does not work because you have the same source of light for both men, if you had sad that they each had a light then you'd be correct that the light from the train would reach the target before the man's that is standing still.

709zzyObjectivity would mean that something is independent of different perspectives. Scientific knowledge gained through experiments can be affected and are affected by the simple act of observation. So just by observing something, you have already changed the result of the experiment. Due to this, how is it even possible to gain scientific knowledge through experiments and have that knowledge to be independent of the subject who studies it.

as far as i am concerned science is only accepted if it can be repeatedly observed, tested (making it objective) and agreed under scrutiny from peers so there is not another perspective, if there was and we could test it then that would change our undersanding and knowledge of the given subjet.
people can and do retest old experiments when new testing equipment is available, and it does update or even change our understanding. it does not mean the old theory was wrong at the time as it was correct for the evidence and understanding we had so far, it only becomes incorrect when we know more.we can't know things we don't know already.

equitypeteyits not comparing apples and oranges at all, Einstein used a very similar explanation i think if i recall when he thew his wet sock after sailing with his son (although my memory is vague) but the principle was that if light was traveling from a moving object it would travel at the speed of light plus the the speed of the object.

I like what you just wrote. I especially like your last sentence from above. With it, you have made my day.

Replying to #18

What? The two men don't have any light with them. They are measuring the time it takes for the two light beams to reach the two points.

equitypeteyas fas i am concerned science is only accepted if it can be repeatedly observed, tested (making it objective) and agreed under scrutiny from peers so there is not another perspective, if there was and we could test it then that would change our undersanding and knowledge of the given subjet.
people can and do retest old experiments when new testing equipment is available, and it does update or even change our understanding. it does not mean the old theory was wrong at the time as it was correct for the evidence and understanding we had so far, it only becomes incorrect when we know more.we can't know things we don't know already.

I never meant to say that science is not acceptable, and I have mentioned the updating of scientific knowledge myself.

Replying to #19

;D fine the light beams they where measuring. if they had one source on the train and one off then yes their results would be different. if it was the same light source they where measuring it would have the same result.
i think this is where the confusion is coming from.the issue with the proposed experiment is the man does not know he is on the train.
although if he had the evidence from the other man then he would know he was moving if he understood relativity .