|
Objective Experimentation and
Observation.
Science depends heavily on the
repeatability of experiments, and on their giving consistent (e.g. almost
identical) results. This repeatability hinges on objective comparison of
observations of different researchers studying the phenomenon.
Objectivity indicates the
desire to observe things as they are, without manipulating the
observational results to accord with some preconceived world view. All
observation is potentially contaminated, whether by our theories or our
worldview or our past experiences.
Scientists, like anyone else, may be swayed by some
preconceptions to look for certain experimental results rather than others.
Scientists are people and suffer the flaws of humanity too, and it cannot
truthfully be said that every scientific theory has arisen from a perfectly
executed process of 'scientific method'.
Scientists have desires, opinions, and biases that may
sometimes influence them in the selection of their data and hypotheses -
even, very ocasionally, to the point of fraudulence. We trust that this is
very rare, and that science is a self-correcting process with checks and
balances - such as empirical replication, and peer reviews of published
work. The scientific community as a whole, however, judges the work of its
members by the objectivity and rigor with which that work has been
conducted.
An infamous example of an experiment that couldn't be
repeated to give the same results again, involved "cold fusion" -
a supposed process by which nuclear fusion could be achieved at room
temperatures instead of the extremely high temperatures normally needed for
fusion to occur. The researchers involved in the original experiment were
found to have been less than objective in their methods.
|