Are scientific knowledge objective knowledge, and can they ever be?

I never implied that there are two light sources. There is only one light source. And the man on the train measures a different result from the man outside of the train. There is no confusion here, you just don't understand the example. Like I said before, this example IS used to show the relativity of simultaneity by einstein. So it doesn't make any sense when you say that the man in the example would know if he understood relativity.

The man on the train uses the floor of the train as his reference frame, it doesn't matter if he knows he is on a train or not, the measurement would still be different from the man outside of the train. There is not a magical telescope that lets you see the ultimate reference frame which is outside of everything, because there is no such thing as that. So the reference frame which the man outside of the train uses (the ground), is no better than the reference frame which the man inside the train uses (the floor).

 

Sigh, I'll give two examples; a joke and a real life example of where children defeat logic.

The joke. NASA is transporting their shuttle to a new location. They load it onto a giant transporter and drive it down the interstate (takes all 3 lanes and the emergency lanes). They get to an overpass and it's 3 feet too tall. A group of scientists take all day to try to find a solution, and they decide demolishing the overpass is the best solution. The total costs would be the least, at roughly $1.5 million. A child going the other way realizes what's going on. He tells his parents he has to pee and they pull over. He bolts across the grass and starts yelling at the head scientist "Let the air out of the friggin tires!"

Real life. We were at Cracker Barrel where they have those silly jump peg triangle games at the table. I decide to play a joke on my niece. I set up the board in one of those cool patterns where you can't jump anything and tell her to jump all but 1. She says ok and starts pulling the pegs out leaving 1. She wins.

The moral is no matter what, we do things based on what we're used to, and we understand truth based on what we're used to, never knowing how accurate anything is. How accurate do you think we communicate with each other? I would say through history just within the human experience, we've missed a sickening amount of details that we would be much better off had we not.

 

tl;dr, but I don't doubt there's plenty of fail going on here.

Firstly, let's clear a few things up. The second postulate of special relativity:

Simultaneity:

Anyway, relativity in this context refers to the subjectivity of measurements. If you're moving at 99.999% of the speed of light, you'd measure time, space and mass differently to if you were travelling at a more realistic velocity. However, your motion does not determine the price of milk at the corner store.

That is all.

 

Nice clear summary.

Obviously, no one comes into this kind of debate (especially on the internet) while expecting a huge change in how he sees the world through his daily routine.

 

If you're talking about observation, the light would still hit both points A and B at the same time, but the person outside the train would only see the light hit point A as point B would be obscured by the back of the carriage. If light is, as you say, independent of any reference frame then it has to hit both points simultaneously.

 

The fact that the two persons, A and B, presume a different velocity of the beam of light on the train is the subjectivity of MEASUREMENT, as someone said. It does not by any means detract from objectivity of science. In fact we can calculate approximately what the perceived velocity by each person is by using the formula



where w' = velocity perceived by observer at point A
v = velocity of observer at point A with respect to point B
w = velocity of object with respect to point B
and c of course is the velocity of light.

And that's that.

 

Nicely put BloodVayne!

 

You are assuming that the reference frame taken by the person outside of the train is inferior than the reference frame taken by the person inside the train. The two inertial reference frames are both valid. Like I said to Equitypetey, if light is not independent of all reference frames, the two men would measure the same result (because the speed of light going toward point A is decreased by the speed of the train and the speed of light going toward point B is increased by the speed of the train from the point of view of the man outside of the train).

What is objectivity of science if not the objectivity of scientific measurements. Also, did you notice that the question is concerning the possibility of scientific knowledge being objective? Assuming a scientific measurement is always subjective, then the corresponding objective knowledge can never be gained by us. We are not all powerful, we can't learn things about the world without doing any kind of experiment. Without having the ability of seeing whats really there, the experiments we do affect the results we get. And those results are no longer objective representations of what really is there. Just like how you admitted yourself, we can calculate the velocity PERCEIVED by by each person. But, there is no way for us to tell which of those two PERCEIVED velocities is more "correct". To make a measurement in this case, the difference in results is due to how the two men perceived the event. It's totally possible for the two men to both realize that what they see is not necessarily what really happened or the only way that the event happened, but that's almost like saying:

The only objective knowledge which we can have through scientific experiments is the fact that we can't have any objective knowledge. (So everything else gained from the experiments are subjective knowledge)

 

if both men are measuring the same light source at which point it hits the target they will measure the same result.

it makes no difference that one is on or off the train if it is the same light source.
they only measure different results if they had independent light sources.

and it's all bollocks anyway because your not a physics professor nor is anyone on here, your using very poor explanations of poor experiments to explain this process.

it also has no effect on the objectivity of science, it has NOTHING to do with whether it is correct or incorrect or someones perspective.

 

There are two targets, not one. If there is only one target, we won't have an issue of simultaneity.

It does make a difference if a man doing the measurement is on the train or off the train. The amount of light sources is not the problem here. One is used, because more light sources do not make the example any simpler.

If you think the example I used is all bollocks just because I am not a physics professor, I am fine with it. I am just a bit surprised that this came out a person who thinks "if light was traveling from a moving object it would travel at the speed of light plus the the speed of the object."

Below you will find an excerpt of a paper written by Gerald J. Massey. The excerpt describes the example I used.

Gerald J. Massey is Distinguished Service Professor of Philosophy, former Chairman of the Department (1970-77), former member of the Board of Officers of the American Philosophical Association (1975-80), and former Director of the Center for Philosophy of Science (1988-97). Before joining the Department in 1970, he was Professor of Philosophy at Michigan State, where he had taught since 1963. He has been Managing Editor of the journal Philosophy of Science (1963-69), Secretary-Treasurer of the Philosophy of Science Association (1964-70), and has held visiting appointments at the University of Michigan (1967) and Hamilton College (1982). In 1997 he was awarded the Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesverdienstkreuz 1. Klasse) by the President of Germany, Dr. Roman Herzog, for his contributions to German-American philosophical cooperation. His principal interests are zoological philosophy, history of philosophy, logic, philosophy & methodology of science, and philosophy of language.

Unlike me, Gerald J. Massey's got a PhD from Princeton. So I hope you would have the ability to understand his words better than mine.

The excerpt:

"Let us consider the following thought experiment associated with the theory of special relativity: Let us assume hypothetically that we are in a glass room which is moving at a high but uniform velocity towards an outside observer. In the exact center of the room is a light bulb which flashes periodically. At the exact moment that we and the room reach the outside observer the light bulb flashes. Is there any difference between what we see and what the observer sees?

Einstein's answer to this question was of course "yes". Since the light from the bulb travels away form the bulb at a constant velocity, and since all the walls of the room are equidistant from the light source, it follows that we will see the light strike both the front wall and rear wall at the same instant. However, for the outside observer there is a crucial difference. From his or her viewpoint outside the room, the front wall is moving forward, away from the approaching light. At the same time the rear wall is moving forward to meet it. Thus from the point of view of the outside observer, the light will reach the rear wall before it reaches the front wall. What was simultaneous from our position inside the room will now be distinct. The conclusion we therefore draw is that the same event will appear differently depending upon the observer's frame of reference."

Here is the full article in case you think I made all that up:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003190/01/9_irvine.pdf


Why do you think that this has nothing to do with the objectivity of scientific knowledge? If the same event will appear differently depending upon the observer's frame of reference, how can the corresponding scientific knowledge still be objective knowledge?

 

OK thanks for that but what you just posted is far from the experiment you described.

and it still has no bearing on if our science is objective.

we only have the one perspective and it sill does not effect the objectivity, the objectivity would only be affected if we had both perspectives and ignored one.

 

It is the same experiment except that the moving train is a moving glass room, and point A and point B are the back and front walls of the room. There is still a man inside and a man outside of the train, and there is still a light source right between the two walls (the two points). Lying like that when I have already posted the excert is in no way beneficial to your argument.

You are still misunderstanding the example. The knowledge gained by the two observers through their observations from their own reference frame would be objective.
(Except that their knowledge of "their knowledge being subjective" is objective.)

 

it's not the same!

i do understand what your getting at what i am saying is that it has no bearing on if our own perspective is objective as we have no knowledge of a different one. as you also say here

we only have only have one reference frame so yeah we could be wrong about everthing we know but currently only knowing what we know, testing only that which we can test and not knowing of an alternative doesn't really matter does it?

do we have any other perspective to which we can test?

 

How are the examples not the same? Just by saying that they are not the same does not make them different.

Not knowing any alternatives doesn't mean that an alternative does not exist. And no, we can have as many reference frames as we want.

 

i never said an alternative did not exsist

and i didn't say we can't have other referance frames

i said our knowledge is currenly from one frame of referance.

can i just adress this
i was just looking back, is it my eyes deceving me or did you add the underlined part at a later date?
as i said my memory is vague about how light works and i may be getting confused with relativity concerning moving object, i'm very sorry oh lord and master it is not my field of expertice which would be behavioural and physical devlopment.

you could of adressed it a page ago when i said it rather then being a jack ass

i can admit if i am wrong, i'm fine with that although you don't seem to do the same.

 

You said we only have one reference frame, which is not true.

I am telling you that those scientific knowledge are not objective knowledge. Not knowing if there are alternatives does not turn those scientific knowledge into objective knowledge, because they are still affected by the kind of perspective we take.

I quoted you in that underlined part, what's wrong with it?

How come you can freely call my example nonsense just because of my status of not being a professor, while I am called a jack ass because I expressed doubt in what you said by quoting what you said before. I think it is worse to base an opinion on some one's status, than to base an opinion on what some one has said.

By the way, I did address it by saying I liked it in my previous posts (and before my edit, I said it was very nice, but I thought that was going too far so I changed it). What do you want me to do, say I hate it?

Seriously, you need to stop your personal attacks directed at me. There is a limit for how much I can endure stuff like "moron and jack ass".

I do admit it when I am shown where I have made a mistake (example: my response to "hyper" in another thread). But its not reasonable for me to agree to something just because some one calls me a "jack ass" for no reason other than quoting a statement that was not made up by me.

 

what is your understanding of being objective?

 

My understanding of objective knowledge is that the knowlege is not affected subjectively. So the knowledge is independent of any perspective that can be taken by the knower.

 

- Science is objective here.

- Science would have to be objective here, or no longer exist.

- Unprovable: See B which makes C objective.

See C.

Sorry to have to quote the exact definitions of 'Objective', but your argument was becoming entangled, and it detracted from what objectivity is, not what you think it is.

Also, subjectivity has pretty much no basis in the whole thing. If two people present a thesis on the same subject, but one is, to the people that are reviewing them, more right than the other. If they choose A over B, but author of B is subjective, it has no stand on whether or not the choice of the people whom chose A over B was objective or not.

My two cents. You don't need numbers to prove objectivity.

 

nothing is indapendant from perspective in one way or another.
are you saying we can't have real knowledge of anything because we don't know if our perspective is correct?

although would you consider scientific equipment indapendant from perspective or because it was made by a man with a perspective it also takes the perspective of the man that uses it?