44 Philosophy and Progress22 Philosophy and Progress: Vols. LIX-LX, January-June, July-December, 2016 this regard, Cartesians appeal to the theory of conspiracy: the ISSN 1607-2278 (Print), DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pp.v59i1-2.36680 idea that various evil influences perverted our originally pure and innocent mind. And this is science which through its methods and techniques ensure to prevent the conspiracy and to discover the manifest truth. The only thing we need to do is to use the scientific methods. This is the traditional understanding of the nature of science which gives us the idea that scientific knowledge is SCIENCE AND SUBJECTIVITY: free from any kind of human attitude and strictly based on observations, experiments, logical analyses of its concepts and UNDERSTANDING OBJECTIVITY OF so on which give us the bare facts of the real world. According SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE to this view, human attitude is associated with human sciences; but as far as natural science is concerned there is no scope for Md. Abdul Mannan* any subjective elements. Scientific knowledge is purely objective, and it is an objective description of the real structure of the world. But the recent philosophical insight into the nature of Introduction science gives us a different idea in this regard. Scientists are There is an epistemological optimism, inspired by the Western men and social beings; therefore, no scientist is beyond his renaissance, leading to the faith that man has power to discern psychology, ideology and sociology which have significant the certain knowledge. The essence of this view lies in the impact on his thought. All these factors produce influences doctrine that ‘truth is manifest’ which implies that truth may over scientific decisions, such as decisions about when a perhaps be veiled, but it may reveal itself. If it does not reveal phenomenon is recognized as a problem, what the methods are itself, it may be revealed by us. Removing the veil may not be for solving the problem, what the methods are for justification, easy, but if we once got the naked truth before our eyes, we how different theories are to be compared, when the research have the power to see it, to distinguish it from falsehood, and to comes to end, etc. This line of investigation will clearly show know that it is true. There is no problem to recognize the truth. that scientific knowledge possesses one kind of subtle Truth is only to be unveiled and discovered. If this is the nature subjectivity in its nature. However, this kind of subjectivity is of truth, then the question arises how we ever fall into error. In not like that of Berkley’s, rather it is understood in terms of scientist’s human attitudes, conceptual framework, specific * Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Chittagong interest, background knowledge, all of which influence his E-mail : [email protected] thought. For this reason, a scientist may think of the world differently than what it really is. Science and Subjectivity : Understanding Objectivity of Scientific 45 46 Philosophy and Progress Scientific Theory and its Subjective Origin depending on the scientists’ position in the knowledge situation of his time. Interpretation of a phenomenon depends on some Scientific theory may emerge from any idea - the theory other theory; this other theory again depends on some yet other becomes scientific only if it is prepared for a critical and theory and in this way, it goes ad infinitum. At this point empirical examination. Any kind of source may be the scientists decide to stop somewhere to settle for an accepted background of scientific knowledge. We have to give up the basic observational statement as an arbiter of falsification idea of ultimate source of our knowledge and no source has the process. If any basic observational statement which supports overwhelming authority. Scientific knowledge may be theory-2, for instance, goes counter to the theory-1 (the generated from any humanistic ideas which are mixed with previous theory), then it is to say that theory-1 is falsified by errors, prejudices, dreams, and hopes. Thus, Popper says that theory-2. Question arises that how much objective the any product of human mind - such as myth, metaphysics, observational statement is. There are many human elements in stories, guesses or whatever– may be the valid source of scientists’ decision to stop at certain position to settle a basic scientific knowledge. Knowledge is thus an adventure of ideas. statement –this is human decision, not a logical end. These ideas are produced by us, and not by world around us. (Popper, 1965, p.95). Krajewiski has also pointed out the human subjectivity in scientific decision. He argues that the investigation starts from This is the first step of our knowledge adventure. The a hypothesis. After that, hypotheses empirically deduce the second step is to try to eliminate error from those products by testable consequences and these consequences are put in an criticism, and that criticism may be as severe as possible at any experiment. If the test gives positive result, the candidate given time. This point of view indicates that to produce a hypothesis is accepted, though this decision is never final. If theory and to criticize it by the available knowledge apparatus the test gives negative result, the candidate is rejected. Here the of the time are dependent on the totality of human ability and experimental design depends again on some other hypothesis. the human conditions in which scientists work for science. So, in this competition, all parties start from hypotheses. So, scientific adventure aims not only to produce theories, (Krajewski, 1977, p. 71). Creation of hypothesis is a subjective but the essential part of its aim is to criticize those theories. involvement. Criticizing ideas may also emerge from any source. In this way For Popper, growth of the theories in science should not be science exposes theories and counter theories to a fiercest considered as the result of the collection or accumulation of struggle for survival. This is a struggle to falsify the previous observations. On the contrary, observations and their theory by the new theory. This implies that theories must be accumulation should be considered as results of the scientific falsifiable – a theory to be scientific needs to be empirically theories. So, science itself throws new light on things; that it falsifiable. To be empirical, falsification must be done on the not only solves problem, but it creates many more. In this way basis of basic observational statement. But a question can arise: we look out for new observations. (Popper, 1965, p. 27). is observational statement really objective? A phenomenon Theory is produced from the imaginative mind of scientist, and could be observed and interpreted from different points of view then we observe according to the theory. Our observation needs Science and Subjectivity : Understanding Objectivity of Scientific 47 48 Philosophy and Progress to be interpreted. So, without theory we could not orient theories that are replete with unobservable entities are ourselves in the world. We observe as our theory suggests. For grandiose ontological frameworks. This ontological instance, the Marxists literally observe class struggle construction is dependent on human ability and personality. everywhere, for their theory suggests that history of mankind is Scientific discovery depends upon some happy thought, no the history of struggle between classes. The Freudians observe maxims can be given which inevitably lead to discovery. everywhere repression and sublimation; the Adlerian sees how (Laudan, 1980, pp. 179-181). Every discovery contains a feelings of inferiority expresses themselves in every action and creative intuition as says Bergson. every utterance. These show that all observations are designed We can find human element in scientific thought when we by their theory. (Pitt, 1987, p. 53). look at a scientific problem and the way to solution. When we Popper declares that nothing can be built on pure data, first encounter the problem, we do not know much about it. At because there is nothing as pure data; there is nothing simply best we have only a vague idea as to what our problem really ‘given’ to us uninterpreted. All our knowledge is interpreted in consists of. How, then, can we produce an adequate solution the light of our expectation and our theories. (Popper, 1983, p. where we do not have adequate understanding about our 102). Theoretical entities, such as electric field, magnetic field, problem? Obviously, we cannot. We must get better gravitational field – all are hypothetical constructs. They are acquaintance with the problem. But, how do we? For Popper, metaphysical and speculation of scientists’ minds. So, nature of we can do so by producing an inadequate solution, and by the world becomes different with the difference of the criticizing it. Only in this way can we come to understand the scientists’ thought. What is oxygen to Lavoisier is problem. For, to understand a problem means to understand its dephlogisticated air to Priestly. No experiment could solve difficulties; and to understand difficulties means to understand their controversy. So, Hanson says that two observers do not why it is not easily soluble - why the more obvious solutions see the same thing. Observing a protozoon – amoeba, one saw do not work. We might therefore produce additional more one celled animal, but the other a non-celled animal (Hanson, obvious solutions. These solutions must be criticized in order 1958, p. 4). to find out why they do not work. In this way we become Moreover, there is general skepticism about the viability of acquainted with problem and we may be able to produce logic of discovery, because most of us cannot conceive that solutions that are better than the earlier ones – provided that we there might be rules that would lead us from laboratory data to have the creative ability to produce new guesses, and more new theories as complex as quantum theory, general relativity, and guesses.