I should explain better now. A theory is always subjective, then it's up to the author to demonstrate that it is also objective.Kurieuo wrote: You've admitted theories are subjective in principle as they are based on subjective experiences through our senses. You then say if something becomes objective it becomes a scientific "theory." Yet if theories are subjective then how can scientific theories be both subjective and objective? Which one is it. And how can something subjective "become" objective?
I could state:
1) the Earth is round
2) in my garden lives a dynosaur
3) tomorrow it will either rain or not
4) Unicorns exist
Theory 1 is scientific because it can be tested or falsified. It remains subjective until anyone can experience it. Then it becomes objective. And objective means that it is verified by anyone.
Theory 2 is scientific because it can be tested or falsified. It remains subjective and can easily be falsified when you or anyone else come in my garden (we could have a barbecue). It is a scientific theory that is simply wrong.
Theory 3 is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. It can be verified, when you'll see that it rains. It becomes objective when tested, but it is useless. It is not scientific. It's a sort of tautology.
Theory 4 is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. It remains subjective for ever.
So, I think I am covering all cases:
1 and 2 are scientific,
3 and 4 are not,
1 and 3 are objective
2 is wrong, therefore cannot become objective
4 is not scientific, therefore cannot become objective
At a first instance, also, yes. But this is not fixed, static and immutable.Kurieuo wrote: Well, aren't acts of faith required to trust our experiences from our senses, and then with reason science can be performed? If so, then faith is still required to perform science.
For example, with my ears I can feel sounds between frequencies of 50 and 20,000 Hertz. I could then be entitled to state that every sound in the universe lies between 50 and 20,000 Hertz frequency.
This would then be something subjective, because your ear may feel a range 55-22,000 rather than 50-20,000.
But if I say that there are also sounds that cannot be directly experienced by my sense because their frequency lies outside this range, then I am moving from subjectivity to objectivity. Anyone can measure the frequency of a sound with a spectrum analyser, and the subjectivity of my senses is overcome.
Difficult to answer in a few lines.Kurieuo wrote: And what does your agnosticism mean to you?
Just to simplify, looking at my examples above, my agnosticism tells me that science is the only way of proceeding in understanding the world with some methodology.
I can't understand the use of any theory that is not scientific and cannot become objective. In the above four examples, I accept only 1.
Theories like example 4 above are acts of faith, because they remain subjective and are not scientific.
I am talking about "science reducing uncertainties". Uncertainties are neither subjective nor objective.Kurieuo wrote: I'd agree that science cannot demonstrate anything to 100%, however, if it can't then can science ever truely be 100% objective?
Within a scientific theory there might be some uncertainties. The rest of the scientific theory, if tested, is objective.
Within theory 1 above, we could say that the Earth is not precisely spherical, but still "round" and not flat.