The Clarification Of Objectivity In The Horizon Of Philosophy Of Science And History Of Science

The notion of objectivity is one of the most important and controversial notion in philosophy of science so far as to the whole philosophy. The propose of this article is to clarify the notion of objectivity in philosophy of science, that is, to find the special meaning in different school. On this basis I will also analyze those different objectivities. Fora good analysis of that I will at first give an analysis of the origin of this word.Logical Empiricism, especially Carnap, and critical rationalism in which Popper is the main representative claim that objectivity is just inter-subjectivity. The difference between them is:for Carnap scientific objectivity is achieved through logical structure since only such structure can have an inter-subjectively communicable meaning; but for Popper the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested. But in fact, treat objectivity as inter-subjectivity has a great, that is, this define has nothing to do with ontology. But Quinn find that ontological commitment is inevitable, so the define of objectivity without ontology is in question. In the most possible sense I can say that the define of objectivity for Kuhn and SSK, especially for Bloor is just for defense of their theory. Kuhn considers that traditional objectivity has two points, that is, scientific progress connects with the accumulation of knowledge, and the objectivity should be ensured by reasonable rules. But Kuhn thinks that when we say one thing is objective, we just mean this thing is real or can be judged. If those critics use the traditional objectivity to judge whether he give up the objectivity of science, which is not rational.SSK(especially Bloor)consider that the notion of objectivity has something to do with social institution, which he thinks that Frege’s define of objectivity has imply that. But in fact Bloor misunderstand Frege’s point. When Bloor’s stand is criticized by scientists, he gives another define of objectivity, which has different with the old one. But the same point of the two defines of objectivity both emphasize the connection between objectivity and social institution So I think I can say that for Bloor, objectivity is used for defense of his social stand.Pickering, who is the main representative of post-SSK, gives objectivity a place in his analysis of scientific practice. In his theory, objectivity is internalized in the progress of scientific practice, it is not the epistemological rules und correspondence between term and reality, it is just a character that knowledge independent of the practicer in the mangle. In a word, the define of objectivity is based on a new ontology, and gives a uniform interpretation among objectivity, relativity and historicity. That is more reasonable.Through the analysis of history of science, Daston and Galison consider that objectivity is just one of the epistemic virtues, scientific objectivity has a history and has not always defined science in the whole history of science, and is not the same as truth. Mechanical objectivity is younger and was appreciative by scientists in middle nineteen century, and it is the norms which are internalized and enforced in the scientific practice. Objectivity is the suppression of the "self. Scientists want to pursue the knowledge without epistemic subject. Structural objectivity strives for the knowledge absolutely without epistemic subject through logic and language analysis, and it has only a little influence to scientific practice. Those two objectivities, especially the first one is just scientists’belief, it is used to guide scientific practice, that is, how to be scientists or how to proceed scientific science.In my opinion, treating objectivity as inter-subjectivity or just using objectivity for defense are all inadvisable. From the aspects of scientific practice to understand objectivity is an advisable choice. Pickering’s objectivity is internalized in scientific practice but has an absolute character, while Daston and Galison’s objectivity has a variational character but it is external. Those two objectivities are complementary. So, if we can combine those two objectivities, I think it is a more reasonable way to understanding objectivity.