Page:Sm all cc.pdf/146



Group Objectivity
“The objectivity of science is not a matter of the individual scientists but rather the social result of their mutual criticism.” [Popper, 1976]

“Creating a scenario may be best done inside a single head; trying to find exceptions to the scenario is surely best done by many heads.” [Calvin, 1986] One can reduce deliberately the influence of the pitfalls above on one’s research. One cannot eliminate the effects of personal involvement and personal opinions, nor is it desirable to do so. ''Reliability of conclusions, not objectivity, is the final goal. Objectivity simply assists us in obtaining an accurate conclusion''. Subjectivity is essential to the advance of science, because scientific conclusions are seldom purely deductive; usually they must be evaluated subjectively in the light of other knowledge.

But what of experimenter bias? Given the success of science in spite of such partiality, can it actually be a positive force in science? Or does science have internal checks and balances to reduce the adverse effects of bias? Several philosophers of science [e.g., Popper, 1976; Mannoia, 1980; Boyd, 1985] argue that a scientific community can make objective consensus decisions in spite of the biases of individual proponents.

It’s said [e.g., Beveridge, 1955] that only the creator of a hypothesis believes it (others are dubious), yet only the experimenter doubts his experiment (others cannot know all of the experimental uncertainties). Of course, group evaluation is much less credible and unanimous than this generalization implies. The point, instead, is that the individual scientist and the scientific community have markedly different perspectives.

Replication is one key to the power of group objectivity. Replicatability is expected for all experimental results: it should be possible for other scientists to repeat the experiment and obtain similar results. Published descriptions of experimental technique need to be complete enough to permit that replication. As discussed in Chapter 2, follow-up studies by other investigators usually go beyond the original, often by increasing precision or by isolating variables. Exact replication of the initial experiment seldom is attempted, unless those original experimental results conflict with prior concepts or with later experiments. Individual lapses of objectivity are likely to be detected by the variety of perspectives, assumptions, and experimental techniques employed by the scientific community.

Perhaps science is much more objective than individual scientists, in the same way that American politics is more objective than either of the two political parties or the individual politicians within those parties. Politicians are infamous for harboring bias toward their own special interests, yet no doubt they seek benefits for their constituents more often than they pursue personal power or glory. Indeed, concern with personal power or glory is more relevant to scientists than we like to admit (Chapter 9).

The strength of the political party system is that two conflicting views are advocated by two groups, each trying to explain the premises, logic, and strengths of one perspective and the weaknesses of the other point of view. If one pays attention to both viewpoints, then hopefully one has all of the information needed for a reliable decision. Conflicting evidence confronts people with the