Reply to comment

I remember discussing in class how motivation might be a factor in determining objectivity and the science/non-science distinction. It seems to me that there are only two possibilites of motivation: knowledge for knowledge sake, or knowledge for other purposes. Though some may deem knowledge for knowledge sake as the more noble pursuit, both categories are perfectly legitimate. Medicine, engineering are both examples of knowledge for other purposes and goals--practical or otherwise.

I think this relates to one of the axes we had on the board- edification and elucidation. Edification being knowledge for the sake of humans, for our lives, for better lives; elucidation being knowledge for knowledge sake, truth for truth sake, regardless of whether it makes our lives better or makes us feel better. Let me know if I'm off.

Complications arise when people (scientists) are out looking for knowledge to prove a conclusion they've already decided on--which could then affect the objectivity of their search. Christians believing earth to be the moral center of the universe automatically assumed earth to be the cosmological center of the universe. In this case it is not science. If however this conclusion was based on the observation that earth seems to be fixed and the sun seems to move from one end of the earth to the other, is the process not scientific, despite the error?

Scientists have the right to hold a tentative conclusion while researching, like the sun revolving around the earth, which is the same thing as holding a hypothesis I think. As long as scientists are willing to let evidence convince them that they may be wrong, objectivity is preserved.