Is Science purely Objective?

I like that you note the value placed on empirical evidence but stress the inability for science to adhere to their own limitations. I think that herein lies why science does not like history to probe their processes – for fear that an inevitable stroke of luck or random oddity might expose a fragile system. I notice a higher importance of ego attached to science than other academic fields, almost like a club that is not open to outsiders. I think it will be interesting to consider the advancing intellect of the scientific mind, and by extension the growth of our species.

Recent separation – especially since scientists were once called Natural Philosophers. I think it is interesting that our interpretation of what science “is” and what it “should do” can reflect research and the way that information is attained. And in our day and age, as Bowler and Morus point out, research is ultimately dependent on who is funding the project – determining what science will do – the one footing the bill has a say in the direction of research, even though research does not always yield immediate results.[1] Modern science is left to the mercy of industry and the military because these offices issue practical use and need of scientific knowledge, but mainly because they hold the money.

For DiscussionIs there any area of human thought that is removed from subjectivity? or, Can human scientists be objective? {Wordpress comments are appreciated}


Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A

Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press,


Picture c/o:


[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 13.