I would say that in almost all cases there is just 'subjective'
science and 'GROSSLY subjective' science. The latter would be the
case of someone either with a personal axe to grind or
political/economic incentive to find a particular result. The
closest we come to an "objective researcher" is someone who doesn't
really care about the results or someone who takes extra pains to
fool him/herself into objectivity like through double-blind
experiments. As human beings, however, we are necessarily subjective
(I think Einstein had something to add to this). Mostly this is
expressed at the very set-up of the experiment/research long before
results are generated. But being subjective does not always preclude
us from acknowledging results contrary to our wishes or anticipations
(case in point, the GMO potato scientist we keep hearing so much
about). So the best we can hope for are scientists with a sincere
desire to not give in to their natural subjectivity and with the
moral strength of character and open-mindedness to acknowledge more
than one set of results. I know this is not like a dictionary
definition you asked for, but it's my input, *subjective* as it may
be! --Anita
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail