Lies That Scientists Tell (Themselves)
Martin Rezny

I am probably missing the concept of what you are saying and I apologize if I am speaking out of misconception, but I don’t fully see objectivity to be as such. Objectivity is based on facts whereas subjectivity is based on emotion or opinion. I understand that is something is said with subjectivity it could still be correct, but it would merely be a guess or at most an educated guess.

I could say humans are normally born with 3 hands, but have nothing that would exhibit why I think this is true. On the objective side, you could gather a lot of evidence based on what is existent, which is two hands and not 3 on the majority of humans. Science does not stipulate that a 3 handed person will never be born, but based on what is existent in every sane person’s reality, is two hands are the most likely outcome for humans to be born with.

I see some valid points in here, but I feel like this take’s anything in science as something that is 100% undebatable fact. Or science is just “seeing is believing” as to say all it takes is one sighting of a large hairy human-like creature in the distance can be considered as science proving bigfoot is real.

I am exaggerating, but it’s to make the point more clear. I probably need to re-read this a couple more times to grasp this more because it seems quite a bit abstract to me at first, but I feel there’s more to what is being said than I saw.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.