If you think you need another perspective, you are being wise, IMHO.
Scientists are "objective" only in so far as they recognize the limits
of their concepts. For example, take the 3 degrees Kelvin background
radiation that is now considered evidence for the big-bang theory of
the creation of the universe. At one time, this "signal" was considered
"noise" and ignored. Was ignoring it being objective?
Another example: the debate over the nature of light; is it waves or
particles? From Newton's time through Maxwell's (about 1620 - 1880),
light was a wave, and all the "objective" evidence "proved" it.
Then, Einstein, using Planck's quantum ideas, showed that a wave
theory could not explain the photoelectric effect and that a
particle theory could. That did not invalidate the previous "objective"
evidence, but rather provided a new perspective on the nature of light,
and led to the fusion of the two "objectivities" in quantum theory.
The reality, so far as I can tell, is that "objectivity" is a subjec-
tive thing. Every concept, perspective, idea, notion, paradigm -- even
every word -- is limiting in some way. The important thing is to know
that the limits exist and, perhaps, what some of them are.
Matt Barkley, LAN Server Products
mbbjr@vnet.ibm.com
I do not represent or speak for my employer (or anyone else).