Objectivity is fake

Many of the assigned articles point out that bias is inherent and impossible to completely erase. It is refreshing to hear this standpoint as I have only taken one class previously that has addressed bias in this way. In this class on how sex and gender are reflected in the brain, we discussed the myth of objectivity: the idea that it is impossible to look from a disembodied view at natural phenomena and discern some kind of absolute truth. The professor of this class pointed out that our cultural ideas of a “neutral,” objective standpoint effectively has meant through the eyes of white males. This fact is reflected in several trends throughout scientific research, for example, the assumption that results gained using male organisms would be true for females as well. Recently, as this article describes, policies have been implemented by the NIH to increase experimentation on both sexes through realizations that including both is critical for the validity of scientific results. This is an example of basic, pervading bias that counters the idea of pure objectivity. This idea was also described in the article by Jared Horvath. I appreciate the way Jared Horvath frames his discussion of this topic in his article, because it does not privilege complete truth and objectivity over other kinds of knowledge-seeking and discovery. His debunking of the idea that famous scientists had bullet-proof experiments and his assertion that every partially-invalid study contains pieces of information that are useful and valid for the progression of scientific understanding supports this point. I like this perspective because I feel like, while increasing the level of accuracy and validity in science is crucial, pure objectivity is not a possible or desirable goal. Humanity would be better served through an acknowledgement of inherent flaws and bias and a goal of identifying the helpful and misleading aspects of a study through an ongoing process (as described in this article).