Is,Supposedly Objective fact based Science always Objective and the Subjectivity of Religion -always Subjective vs Objec

In response to a forum post -

Does science tell stories?

Here is his Question;

A science paper is supposedly objective truth. But if language is the medium of expression, and all language is subjective, how objective the language of science?

One reply said that science is subjective ,is not always right and never will be and that language is not perfect and can be misinterpeted.

Another Rightly I think makes the statement that objective truth depends on all the knowledge that preceeded it. Then the word objective itself can be manipulated to mean what ever one wants it to mean.

The very definition of the word objective - "Of or relating to an end","existing outside and independent of the mind","dealing with facts with distortion by personal feelings or prejudices.could be construed as being objective when it may in fact not be objective.

Another definition in addition to those above is - "An aim or end of action"

This particular definition could be refering to an individuals personal bias for or against an idea depending on their personal goal is their version of being objective.It's an ambigous definition.

Religion and science have historically had an ongoing conflict because of religious leaders interpetation or misinterpetation or even downright rewriting of the bible as opposed to Science scholars such as Galileo with his telescope telling him that the earth revolves around the sun ,rather than the other way around and religion saying the opposite is true.

Obviously Galileo used his telescope and .religion used the bible.

Galileo's is being objective in the true sense of the word.

The Church and their religion are not being objective with respect to the Earth's relationship to the Sun.

This example shows how personal perspective can interpet or misinterpet the truth through a lack of objective knowledge by, utilizing rather subjective knowledge.or knowledge that is believed by some to be outside one own prejudice or bias but has in fact been perjudiced by those who interpet that knowledge through their own bias even if it was not intentional as it, skews ones own objectivity.Which is the very definition of subjectivity.

Fact vs Fiction

Fiction is often based on fact ,but not always facts as we know them.Some fiction is based on ones subjective idea of what our imaginitive mind can come up with.Some fictional stories about using water as a fuel as told in 20,000 leagues under the sea based on some factual information.The same is true about flying cars,etc.

Wheather what we read about in fiction becomes fact or not is dependent on our innovative and creative abilities as scientific knowledge increases over time concerning the laws of the universe.

Water can in fact be used as a fuel.This is a fact.

We,should question the method being used as to it's efficacy.Is,there a better method of doing the same thing that is more efficatious than other methods.There may be more than one.

There is a saying that "Competition breads Inovaton" However when the competition becomes too Intense then extreme measures may be Employed that are not ethical or legal ,yet effective to eliminate the competition.

Scientists are not immune to subjectivity because of the motives they may have.Money being one.If,you happen to be working for a corporation that is intent on promoting their version of a particular way of say producing energy as opposed to scientists from another corporation that has a competing way of producing energy ,then the scientists in both corporations have a vested interest in their own corporations motives ,namely making money rather than wheather one or the other way of producing energy is the best way to produce energy in unbiased objective terms.Unless they decide that they would do better by working for the competition.Although that's not likely today with all the non dsisclosure agreements employees have to sign these days.

Scientific papers have been purposely skewed in order to give the scientists employers an advantage at least subjectively if not objectively for their own private corporate objectives.

One person made the comment making fun of the idea that their are people who believe that the earth is flat.While I agree with him that the earth is not flat ,simply because there are hills and valleys everywhere and the horizon makes it impossible to see an object at a certain distance on land or at sea.That said it is also a fact that a cirrcle can be formed by drawing a series of straight lines at a certain angle one after the other.So,for someone who is limiting their view of the world around them the earth is flat,just like their I.Q.

How about the theory that the earth is hollow?

There is some evidence that the earth may be hollow based on the scientific principles of enertia and gyroscopic forces where mass expands while it spins and leaves less mass at it's center.The mass at the very center would necessarily be heavier than the rest in order to stay where it is.This idea permits the logical idea that there is a small dense mass at the center of the earth.

Another comment was that "science does not offer truths"

If,the purpose of science is not to get to the truth,why did the pope put Galileo under house arrest to keep him from spreading his "proof" or truth that the earth is not at the center of the universe and that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around?

I'm well aware of science being used to misguide people for profit. and,religion is not immune from such motives either.Not that all science and religion is bad,far from it at times,but there are negative motives non the less.

Mathimatics wheather it's based on the decimal system or any other system has the same meaning,just using different mathimatical symbols.It makes no difference what matimatical representations are used for our computations,it's the ratios between the numbers in whatever mathimatical system is used.Be it binary ,decimal,hexidecimal or whatever.

Concerning science I would like to add that the prevailing idea that certain energy devices that have popped up in the archives of the internet and have been around some cases centuries have been dismissed because of the prejudices in scientific circles and elsewhere.

That is the idea that because not enough of us yet understand a particular concept that it therefore does not exist.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed is a well known concept.

However,tapping sun and wind energy are well known ways of tapping energy.

So,why is it not possible to tap magnetic energy exclusively from permenent magnets?

Most will answer back - because it hasen't been done yet.

I disagree with that statement because I have seen a design that should work based on current magnetic theory.

The idea has to do with the direction and polarity of magnetic field forces within a particular shape of magnetic material.

I wrote up a hubpage about it if anyone cares to take a look at it. You can use the hubpage search box using the terms - "self powered magnetic motor"