Subjective Science
The belief that science is and must be objective is a widely held dogma that requires examination and better expression. However, the term “objective” is not the problem. Objectivity can be defined precisely: the observer/subject is forbidden from adding to or extracting energy from the object. This is correct both classically and quantum mechanically. As a result, all objective subjects in objective science will experience the same object in the same way. And from this is secured objective truth: mechanics. However, a purely objective mechanical science is a very small universe, consisting of only idealized constant energy systems.
What of the many situations in life where the observer/subject does exchange energy with the object?! Where subjective observers exchange energy with what is being observed. We will call this Subjective Science. Although subjective science is today draped with the negative connotations of modern dogma, subjective science is by far more important and relevant than objective science. All biological systems routinely transfer energy to affect an external object in order to get what it needs. When energy is exchanged, an object is no longer strictly speaking an object, but is part of a larger system. Although part of something larger, the behavior of the object remains the focus.
Human actions are no different from other biological systems, but of course with human purpose:
· advertising campaigns to drive product sales,
· effective actions taken to combat global warming,
· supply chains to distribute vaccine to reduce infection during a pandemic,
· and so on and so on.
Looking at these examples, it is clear that subjective science must admit human will — what we want to do. And Subjective Truths are those truths that are independent of human will. So, thankfully, subjective truth conforms with our common expectation of “real” truth. Subjective Truth is absolutely not dependent on a point of view, or, on human will.
Subjective science means that we are engaged with the object energetically, not just passively observing. Note that objective science and objective truth are merely special cases of subjective science and subjective truth, where the human wills not to affect the object. The fault has been how we commonly think of subjectivity: negatively. It is undeserved and misleading.
In subjective science, therefore, the fruits of human will should be measured by the displacement energy from the strictly mechanical energy, and thereby freed from mechanical causality. Fortunately, there is an analytically solvable example to explore and understand, in the science of counting for time-series. To develop perspective and proportion, we start with subjective science applied to Nature. Subjective science and the human will is explored elsewhere.
The Thermodynamics of Counting in Central Park
In Figure 1 below, we plot the average daily temperature in Central Park from 2019 to 2023, that is, the sun’s exchange of energy with our shared planet resulting in temperature change. The dotted green curve is the running arithmetic mean which identifies where mechanics (and statistical mechanics) is valid.
The displacement energy for the same time-series data in Figure 1 is plotted in Figure 2. The green dotted line is the mechanical energy. We have subtracted away the constant mechanical energy so that the mechanical energy now has zero offset. When the displacement energy is non-zero, energy is flowing into (above zero-axis) or out of (below zero-axis) the object: Central Park.
Finally, in Figure 3 a subjective truth is plotted: the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics (E = TS + F) permits system energy to be transformed into other forms of energy, for example, heat (TS, red) and free energy (F, blue). Note that the temperature, T, is the entropic temperature of the temperature time-series we are measuring. Potential for confusion, but we’ve addressed it. Free energy is the energy available to do work, in this case, temperature work in Central Park. During summer we see heat increase and free energy decrease, signifying the temperature work that free energy is performing. In winter we see a quench, where the increasing free energy drives heat down and positions itself to do the work of reheating in the next cycle.
Conclusion
An unnecessary and self-limiting expectation of science as “objective” has hardened over many, many years, and seems only to establish the environmental conditions necessary for (near-) equilibrium statistical analysis. However, in practice the live data rarely satisfies (near-) statistical equilibrium requirements. The introduction and focus on exogenous (external) forces in statistics is at the expense of internal system forces that are orders of magnitude larger, and those larger forces are dismissed with objectivity assumptions.
Human ambition requires a more refined understanding of science, one that integrates subjective and objective analysis automatically. The science of counting as an analytical example shows us how to move forward. [1]
[1] M. Temple-Raston, The Science of Counting. https://medium.com/@mtempler_9952/the-science-of-counting-634af683635f
Mark Temple-Raston, PhD (Cantab) is a founder of Precision Insight. Precision Insight implements the science of counting as a web service for applications in both business and life. Precision Insight, among other things, provides an “oscilloscope” in the cloud where a time-series is provided by the customer (any time-series), and a complete set of thermodynamic measurements are returned in real-time.
