But the data will be the same regardless of who is conducting the experiment. Changing the population that you conduct the experiment on is changing variables. Interpretation of the data may change depending on whether the experimenter is athiest or Christian.
I already qualified that I meant objective in two different senses and conceded that pure logical objectivity is not attainable through the scientific method.
Objective in the second way means that people performing the same actions will get the same results regardless of cultural or personal biases.
Observer bias refers to the interpretation of the data, and the construction of a model using that data. Bias also exists in the formation of theories which determine which experiments will be done.
However, two people performing the double slit experiment, for example, will find the same results as long as they follow the same methodology. The idea of the double slit experiment and what the data mean are of course up to interpretation and that interpretation will have some amount of bias.
This is the same as saying basketball games have objective scores. The score is what it is regardless of who is reading the number on the scoreboard or who is playing the game. The rules of the game are arbitrary in the same way that an experimental hypothesis and methodology are arbitrary. What the score means is subjective to the fans in the same way that data interpretation is subjective to the observer.
This is true to the extent that science can only prove things through induction and induction is not as good as deduction for logical proofs. Which means that it is not “objective” in the logical senses as it relates to physical reality. But science is “objective” to the extent that experiments are repeatable by any any given person following the same methodology will be the same results.
However the meme image is about interpretation of glyphs used to represent numbers. And the left guy on the bottom is a dumb fuck for not using one of the possible agreed upon options for the interpretation of that glyph.
This is more about interpretation of language and communication than science. Which puts you somewhere between the “9” and “6” guys because you are at least keeping the conversation in the interpretation of data / epistemology arena.
The problem are the people who see this and call it woke or start rambling about a flat earth. Those are the real dumb fucks who aren’t talking about any reasonable interpretation of the thing that is clearly being discussed.
Or songs off the Taylor Swift album
I feel like Tintin and Asterisk and Obelisk would be full of suitable imaged
Tesla is a great example of how genius is not a generalizable thing. He is the reason most of us have electricity, but he was a mess when it come to understanding people.
No the point of science is to test theories. Data can confirm or de confirm a theory. So, part of science is data collection. In fact, the data colllection is the most important part, otherwise it’s just theory and philosophizing.