The Great Rift - Travellers' Comments Welcomed!

[Limpin Legin]

Yes, but how can you really be objective about government types? And the TL indexes cover such a wide variety of technology applications, why should it be determined that one tech be included with another, in the same category? Both these are included in Traveller as "scientific", yet doesn't produce evidence on how this can be.

 

[Anstett]

It also does depend on the attitudes of when the survey was done.

Time X - We need to know all about all the physical characteristics about the main world, just the basics of how many gas giants, etc.

Time Y - We need to have a holistic approach to our surveys and take into account how the biome and population change over time and interact with each other

Time Z - We need to combine all of our previous survey data, double check results and add in details about the entire system. (WBH)

Time Misc. - Random Traveller Scientist who is deeply concerned about the aquatic biome

Take into account the hundreds of years between official surveys with random reports from who ever interfiled.

 

[Sigtrygg]

They are still not subjective, they are objectively definitive.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Scientific surveys are not subjective, or they are not scientific.

Taxonomy is not scientific. It is subjective. Pretty much everything else is objective though.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Taxonomy, by its definition is objective, categorisation by observable features rather than subjective feelings.

 

[Arkathan]

Scientific surveys are not subjective, or they are not scientific.

True, However, the general public does not necessarily KNOW they are not scientific. The propaganda machines espouse their scientific accuracy and the public say, "Yep."
Take Big Sugar paying for "scientific studies" showing that sugar is good for you while fat is bad for you. In reality the opposite is true, but moderation and selective use is key.
Same with all of those chemicals that the US uses with wild abandon, while Europe says, "Oh, Heck No." Someone signed off on those, and they were not paid to be very scientific about it. When someone up the chain has an agenda, truth, science and reality are the first victims. We are the next.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Taxonomy, by its definition is objective, categorisation by observable features rather than subjective feelings.

Classification by DNA would be objective. Look at the history of taxonomy and tell Me how objective you think it is. It is a horrible mess.

From Britannica,

Taxonomy - Classification, Naming, Organizing | Britannica

Taxonomy - Classification, Naming, Organizing: As long as the only known plants were those that grew fixed in one place and all known animals moved about and took in food, the greater groups of organisms were obvious. Even in the time of Linnaeus, however, many biologists wondered about such...

www.britannica.com

It discusses many of the problems of taxonomy and how it is, at best, only partially objective.

 

[Geir]

(Keeping in mind that the definition of science is basically: "Hey, this is the answer I got. Check my work.")

 

[Condottiere]

Replication of the same result(s).

 

[MasterGwydion]

(Keeping in mind that the definition of science is basically: "Hey, this is the answer I got. Check my work.")

Yeah, but if the answer is basically that these two things look kind of similar then the people checking your work have a subjective hypothesis to check. If the answer is through genetic testing, "We have discovered that this species is an offshoot of this other species", then it is scientifically provable.

 

[Seffix]

The closest science gets to 'proven' is 'hasn't been disproven yet.'

 

[CordwainerFish]

The closest science gets to 'proven' is 'hasn't been disproven yet.'

You know you're sciencing good when your model agrees with the standard model but is a little more elegant.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Classification by DNA would be objective. Look at the history of taxonomy and tell Me how objective you think it is. It is a horrible mess.

From Britannica,

Taxonomy - Classification, Naming, Organizing | Britannica

Taxonomy - Classification, Naming, Organizing: As long as the only known plants were those that grew fixed in one place and all known animals moved about and took in food, the greater groups of organisms were obvious. Even in the time of Linnaeus, however, many biologists wondered about such...

www.britannica.com

It discusses many of the problems of taxonomy and how it is, at best, only partially objective.

Yes it is a mess. But it is still not a subjective classification, there are rules and objectivity.

Has 4 legs - I think its a cat, well i think its a dog - hey its subjective.

 

[Sigtrygg]

(Keeping in mind that the definition of science is basically: "Hey, this is the answer I got. Check my work.")

Almost, science is actually the checking of the work in an attempt to show it doesn't work. Science is inherently cynical.

I will accept your idea works until I or someone else shows it is wrong and comes up with a better explanation, which we can then all try to pick holes in.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yeah, but if the answer is basically that these two things look kind of similar then the people checking your work have a subjective hypothesis to check. If the answer is through genetic testing, "We have discovered that this species is an offshoot of this other species", then it is scientifically provable.

Science doesn't prove, it disproves...

 

[Sigtrygg]

You know you're sciencing good when your model agrees with the standard model but is a little more elegant.

Which standard model? We know there are issues with THE Standard Model...

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yes it is a mess. But it is still not a subjective classification, there are rules and objectivity.

Has 4 legs - I think its a cat, well i think its a dog - hey its subjective.

What is defined as the color red? It is a subjective grouping of a range of wavelengths. According to Copilot, red is typically 620-750nm. According to straight Google, it is approximately 625-740nm. Livephysics,com lists the color red as being 622-780nm. Siencenotes.org defines red light as 625-700nm. See? Subjective. Even the "accepted" definitions do not match. So, if your classification of a plant or animal uses the color red in its classification, it is inherently subjective.

That is just one example. I am guessing that this is an issue for more than just colors in classification as well.

There. I did your science for you. I have disproven your hypothesis that taxonomy is objective. You can't be objective if your definitions are subjective.

 

[Sigtrygg]

They are not subjective, you example actually proves the point.

Light with a wavelength of 620->750nm is red, arguing about where you actually set the range 620->625 is due to internal disagreement among those who make the scales, this is not subjective opinion of the one person making the measurement.

"Use subjective when you’re talking about an opinion or feeling that is based on an individual’s perspective or preferences.

Use objective when you’re talking about something—like an assessment, decision, or report—that’s unbiased and based solely on the observable or verifiable facts."

 

[MasterGwydion]

They are not subjective, you example actually proves the point.

Light with a wavelength of 620->750nm is red, arguing about where you actually set the range 620->625 is due to internal disagreement among those who make the scales, this is not subjective opinion of the one person making the measurement.

"Use subjective when you’re talking about an opinion or feeling that is based on an individual’s perspective or preferences.

Use objective when you’re talking about something—like an assessment, decision, or report—that’s unbiased and based solely on the observable or verifiable facts."

You missed the point. Again. If you can't agree on the definitions, because the definition of "red" is subjective, then none of the observations that are made are objective.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Then it is not scientific.