There Is No Such Thing As Neutral Seriously

Emily McLain

April 15, 2005

Physics 361

Essay # 1

Essay Grade: C+

There is no such thing as “neutral”… seriously

The idea that there could be human observation without bias is absurd. Human beings are fallible, not one is perfect. Because of this we make mistakes and we judge and understand things differently. Life does not happen in a vacuum, thusly when events occur every human being is going to observe those events with personal, or environmental biases. This broad picture of human bias correlates with the scientific field through the discovery of data. The scientific data that was collected in the past simply through observation was always biased (keep one tense), because it is impossible for human beings to simply observe something and come to consensus. Science is a difficult term to understand and define, but science simply through observation cannot be taken as completely neutral information. This is because every human being sees things in a slightly different way then other humans.

Conflicting testimony in a trial shows that a group of people can all witness the same event and develop completely conflicting stories. Different vantage points or focusing on one aspect of a crime scene can produce differing opinions of what is “fact.” It is possible for one person to be more neutral then someone else in certain situations. If the judge in this case has no relation to the event being discussed he is more neutral then the witnesses because he/she is not drawing on his view of the event, he/she is simply making a judgment based on what every person says. But the judge is not completely neutral because he/she might have had a similar experience that is in the back of their mind, in which case, even if it is subconscious, they will overlay their bias on the event. [MR1]

In the past, ideas concerning religion, cultural beliefs, and lack of information were what detracted from neutral standpoints in scientific data by observation. There are many consequences to the presence of this bias[MR2] in scientific observations. The greatest consequence of this is the fact that there can be no assurance of truth or conclusion. Because each person observes and then concludes in different ways there can be nothing to test[MR3], there is no continuity. There can never be complete truth because everyone understands events differently and everyone comes to different conclusions even if they do the exact same experiments or observe the exact same thing. But there can be more consistent science and understanding through other means thaen observation. Testable hypotheses with variables and constants can create continuity in understanding and the process of coming to conclusions. You could be using more evidence in this paragraph.

In ancient text concerning omens there is a very basic understanding of post hoc, ego propter hoc[MR4]. Everything seems to be based off of this understanding if one thing happens it must be connected to whatever happens after that. This (what is “this”?) is flawed because there is not necessarily a connection between something like rain and then the success of a government. One omen says: “When the earth quakes in (the month of) Nisan, the king's land will revolt from him. When the earth quakes during the night, harm will come to the land, or devastation to the land." This omen shows that an earth quake was observed and someone saw that a revolt closely followed. This form of observation could never be neutral because another observer of the earth quake might not care about the government in which case that conclusion would never cross their mind. They(who?) might come up with something like “When the earth quakes in the month of Nisan, the birds with fly south.” So each observer of the earth quakes are naturally biased by their experiences and cares in life.[MR5]

In discussing Ptolemy’s Almagest,[MR6]people still wanted to conclude after this text that the earth did not move because it fit what they observed and what fit their social understanding and their place on the earth. The explanation of the star’s location, and the positioning of the moon and sun were simply what they had observed with the naked eye. The idea that conclusions can be drawn from that is absurd because it is full of bias. The scientific method cannot depend on just observation, it also must conclude with re-testable experiments, and real measurements in a universal language so everyone can understand. [MR7]Galen then explained what urine does when flow is stopped and then allowed to happen. He uses observation, but his observation can be repeated exactly as opposed to simply experiencing an earth quake and drawing conclusions upon that.

The consequence of scientific methods based purely on observation is the great amount of bias present. Humans cannot be neutral observers. Because theire are cultural, and experiential ideas and biases (inside of everyone)[MR8]. Every human is affected by their bias, in the conclusions we draw and the way we understand different events that we view and experience. In which case the generation of scientific data by observation is influenced by each person’s prior experience, cultural and societal influences, there is no such thing as neutral. Because of this every conclusion reached simply by observation is subjective. There can be no objective observation when everyone is affected by theirhis or her personal biases.

Generally, your paper was a bit redundant and needed to be looked over before turned in, especially for grammatical errors. This paper appears to be a first draft, not a final one and lacking in a concise opening paragraph. Remember to articulate an argument and then back it up with evidence, this is a vital procedure to writing an “A” paper. I would give it a “C”.

[MR1]I see what you mean here but is this paragraph relevent to the question at hand?

[MR2]Pick plural or singular form

[MR3]I don’t know what you mean, there is plenty to test. Evidence?

[MR4]What?

[MR5]It World be good to concider the order of this paragraph.

[MR6]Explain what this is.

[MR7]If you begin the paper with a thesis explaining that you will discuss these specific experiments, it will be easier to understand,

[MR8]cliche