In science one makes observations and deduced based on them what the
world is like and then makes some more observations to see if one's
deductions are true or false. So the whole of science is based on the
observations being correct and unbiased. It is the better the more
sure one can be about the observations, so it is better to make as
many sure observations as possible instead of the few only.
Science is taught in schools. The ideal is that all the pupils would
take a look at their own experience of life, see its complexity and
understand via that how many factors there are affecting each
experiment. So the pupils could learn which things are sure and which
not. Like in physics: a ball falls according to what is taught in
school but a toy pulled by a string jumbs around in an unpredictable...

In article 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Hannele.Tervola@gmail.com gmail.com> wrote:

There is not just the problem of observations, but the
inferences made from the observations. It is NOT the
case that the observations determine the inferences made.

In simple cases, it may appear that this is so, but when
the cases are not so simple, good scientists can come up
with widely divergent models. It is at this point that
one can show that objectivity is not possible.

This lack of objectivity is treated in statistical decision
theory, and the answers are often that the answers are not
easy. This is not learned by starting out with apparently
simple cases, but by "plunging into the deep end."

On May 6, 10:54 pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:

If you are higly skilled in objective thinking, you can make the basic
deductions right and so predict what even the UFOs must have known in
order to build the kind of spaceships that they do - IF they exist...

Objectivity IS possible, different people are just good at different
sides of it, maybe entirely bypassing the points that others rise.
When I was on a course in theoretical biology, there were two types...

In article <9ce0e184-18ba-48ef-839f-60bf5754eb9f@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Hannele.Tervola@gmail.com gmail.com> wrote:

One can construct VERY SIMPLE models so that NO objective
approach can come close to matching the performance of
non-objective approaches.