By: Kailana Wang, Jack Tatirosian, Miya Judy, and Ian Campbell
*All authors contributed equally to this work*
How do we know what is “true nature?” The objective reality, the very truth of nature, as Theodore Porter calls it, is often warped. The aim of science is to present objective truths, that is, truths that hold regardless of the individual. Scientists often provide hard-evidence for their findings, but Peter Galison notes that these findings are often manipulated and affected when they are reported. The issue, then, becomes how scientists measure and report their studies which objectively quantify the scientific knowledge available. In essence, quantifying data and standardizing those quantifications enables scientists to more closely achieve objectivity.
In the early history of science, many observations were made qualitatively and depended greatly on the individual. Quantitatively reporting data and assigning a numeric value to a measurement, is viewed as a more reliable means of reporting scientific knowledge. When data no longer depends on the individual, we attain a method of representing the physical properties of nature. Length, volume, weight, all forms of quantitative data. Yet, a United States scientist might claim a man is six feet tall while a Frenchman might describe the man as two meters tall. The same property is quantified using two very different methods. Different cultures, groups, and laboratories within the same country might use different tools or processes of quantification. True objectivity can only be achieved when those tools and processes are standardized.
When scientists begin to communicate results or recreate experiments done in other laboratories, consistency is crucial. Standardizing equipment and measurements ensures that results are consistent, not to say that those results are accurate. “There is a strong incentive to prefer precise and standardizable measures to highly accurate ones” (Porter pg.29). In essence, Porter claims that science is more concerned with recreating results rather than producing results that are correct. A fact, then, is defined as a measurement that can be consistently recorded. When something becomes standardized, it becomes defined as factual, that is until a more accurate method becomes available.“Scientists were after a collective empiricism, a codification of shared knowledge that would give them the basic working objects of their fields” (Gailson pg.73). When universal, or at least semi-universal agreement is reached, a false sense of objectivity is assumed.
This begs the question, can objectivity achieved? We would like to assume that objectivity is plausible, but so much of science remains very much subjective, and objectivity changes so often. Despite standards in quantification, objectivity cannot be standardized. It is human nature to be subjective, to have some sort of biased standpoint on a topic. Subjectivity retains a prominent role in science. Even scientists who spend their entire careers working towards being objective experience challenges achieving it. As stated by Rudolf Virchow “I must openly confess that it has not been possible for me to desubjectivise myself entirely…where I thought myself wholly objective I have still held onto a large element of subjective views”(Gailson pg.62). Achieving objectivity is not a simple task, objectivity faces challenges both at the personal level and at the societal level. For example, when journals begin to report scientific data, they often imbue it with biased and partisan information. A report on the chemical content in a river may be influenced by the company sponsoring the study. In journalism there is a constant struggle to determine what is the truth and how or if it has been stretched. In journalism there is a standard that whatever has been written is the truth, however the news or article is only as strong the writers awareness of their weakness and susceptibility to being subjective.