The Myth of Objectivity

The recent controversy surrounding the leaked emails from scientists involved in researching global warming is a nice reminder of the ineluctably subjective nature of the pursuit of knowledge. I am not in any way trying to deny global warming. Indeed, as this article shows, it does not appear that any global warming data was fabricated. What it does show is that the process of scientific investigation, and all pursuits of knowledge, reflect deeply subjective elements.

This point is captured nicely in the article linked to above: "This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here." What is taking place within the scientific community is by no means unusual or unethical, it just isn't "objective."

There is often times this claim by those seeking to use science as an ax against religious knowledge that scientific knowledge is somehow objective while religious knowledge is not (admittedly this is usually not asserted by actual scientists, just popularizers who apparently have a much weaker grasp of the scientific enterprise). However, to make such a claim is to ignore the many subjective facets that mark science. This in no way weakens the power of science, it merely shows what the pursuit of knowledge looks like. This is why subjective experiences should not be looked down upon a priori.

Religious experiences need not be seen as subjective to the point that they have nothing to offer anyone beyond the person who experiences it. As the work of Michael Polanyi has helped demonstrate, there is not a rigid subjective/objective dichotomy that can be affirmed (I am indebted to Lesslie Newbigin's excellent short book Proper Confidence for many of these insights). Thus, all knowledge claims reflect subjective experiences, but these subjective experiences can be made with universal intent. This is what takes place in the sciences. Every experiment is marked by countless subjective decisions, reflecting the individual researcher's inclinations, intuitions, hunches, biases, circumstances, previous experiences, etc., but the results are made with universal intent.

I am saying that the same thing might be said of religious knowledge. I'm not going to try to push this to make an unwarranted claim (like that the scientific method is identical with religious experiences), I am only showing that any claim to knowledge, be it scientific or religious in nature, is put forth along a path of deep subjectivity. Objectivity is a chimera that neglects the ways in which we actually undertake the act of knowing. It is not something that can be set rigidly apart and in opposition to subjectivity. The two are interconnected and related in a way that one cannot be separated from the other. This doesn't make the case for religious knowledge, but that is not my point. My point is merely to point to a mistaken approach that often takes place in faith/science debates on a popular level.