The Green Rules -- Objectivity and Subjectivity

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Helio, where is the word *falsifiable* here?
That would be helpful for the broader question of science itself. My attempt is to get focus on how objective and subjective elements should be handled in science.

Both objective and subjective elements with scrutiny are subject to being falsified, so perhaps it is implied in Rule 1.

I want to think about adding your point, however, to one of the rules since it is very important to science.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Measuring tools are severely limited. To exclude what goes beyond them is short sighted. Be open to the convergence of the new physics with ancient metaphysics. Be not afraid to let go of your premuses
No fear is involved, however. It isn't about feelings but how we need to give order and purpose to what we call science. Indeed, one of the main purposes is to keep things like "consensus science" and pseudoscience from being excessive respect. They can help develop science, but if the SM can't give the claims proper scrutiny (testability) then it should not be called science.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

How does this fit your rules? I am not clear on this?

"a consensus of accurate perceptions"
"a consensus of accurate measurements".

Cat :)
Good question and helpful as an example.

"Consensus" is the opinion of others, usually those that are respected in their field. So this is aspect is clearly subjective and, thus, must not be treated as authoritative directly to the science but useful in ascertaining the likelihood of its veracity. (Rule 2)

"Accurate measurements" comprise the objective elements to not only serve to inform the human perceptions but help build the consensus. These are the foundation to both. Science thus is objective-based.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Here is one thing I am completely against. Everything in this universe is of direct influence to Science. As everything in the universe is directly under the sphere of Science.
Yeah that probably needs improvement. The key word there is "direct" as opposed to "indirect" influence. Subjective elements (e.g. opinions) won't change the objective elements (e.g. Weight = 1 kg), but indirectly they may. We all tend to believe what we want to believe and even scientists can have a bias one way or another. Such subjective elements should not be allowed to be seen as directly affecting that aspect of the science. But yet they do, so I get your point.

Perhaps it could be improved with "Subjective elements have no direct influence over objective elements."

I prefer, however, to find some way to emphasize that no matter how strong a subjective portion of any claim is respected that it must be treated as something more indirect (influential) but without the ability to define the science. IOW, I'm trying to make the "truth" or neo-truth part of science be seen as less influenced by opinions, regardless of their strengths. Thus Rule 3 is separate from Rule 2.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe