Challenging the Objectivity of Science

Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi observes science to get the facts straight about it.

- Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi

In his influential 1976 textbook What Is This Thing Called Science?, Alan Chalmers examines how scientific knowledge is acquired and validated, by looking at the methods underpinning scientific inquiry. He presents and explores the idea that science is fundamentally grounded in the acquisition of objective knowledge through direct observation; that sensory data serves as the bedrock upon which scientific understanding is built. Then he describes some of the criticisms of this picture, and various attempts by recent thinkers to build a more accurate model of the development of science. I want to carry this is a little further. The central thesis of my critique is that observations in science are not purely objective: they’re influenced most notably by theoretical frameworks, prior knowledge, and subjective biases that shape how data are perceived and interpreted.

The Traditional View of Science

The traditional view is that science is grounded in observable facts obtained through direct sensory experience. These observations are objective: facts that are indisputable, checkable, independent of the foibles of the individual observer and directly accessible through our senses. This unparalleled level of objectivity, it is widely believed, distinguishes science from other forms of knowledge, making it a beacon of certainty in a world filled with personal biases and unfounded opinions. It shows that the scientific method is an unswerving path to truth, free from the messiness of individual perspectives.