What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)

is it possible for evidence to be really objective? As human beings we see what we want to see and what we expect to see, occasionally we see things that stand out because they are different from what we expect to see. We rarely see things that are unnotable and what we are not looking for. Aren't all observations heavily theory dependent?

True, but as pretty much all scientists exist within the same paradigm repeatability of results helps a little but still gets us nowhere near objectivity.

but it isn't necessarily INDIVIDUAL bias. it's PARADIGM bias. which means that no matter how many times you repeat it it's still dependent on the theory that you're looking with, the theory used to build the equipment used to detect your results etc etc etc many many people can all observe the same results, but it still isn't "objective" because they are all wearing the same glasses.I would argue that absolute objectivity is impossible.

theory does influence the results given simply because theory influences the way it's tested.we don't just LOOK at things anymore. we poke around using instruments. what if it turned out that the theory used to build our telescopes for example, was flawed. this is extremely unlikely and not worth worrying about on a day to day basis. however it is important to know that nothing is EVER tested in isolation, no theory can be extracted from its fellows and tested independently.sure, most of the time evidence that passes the test of repeatability by different people in different places can be *treated as* being objective. but it still has a possibility of being flawed. it is possible for a hundred people in a hundred different places to all do the same experiment and get the same results (and i've done lab experiments, so them all getting the same results seems highly unlikely, hey the equipment actually working seems highly unlikely) and for every single one of them to be basing it on a flawed assumption.I'm not saying that science should change, or that there is a better way of deciding which things are good evidence. because I don't think there is one, and if there ever is then I'm sure that that won't be objective either. However, what I am saying is that the dependence of observation on theory should be more widely known, and that science shouldn't take such things like "as close as we can get to objectivity" as "objectivity"

observing what appears to be red shift depends on many assumptions. assuming our theories about light to be correct, assuming our theories about the nature of space to be correct assuming the theories used to build every single piece of equipment to be correct, we make this observation. thus theories influence the appearance of the evidence.all of these assumptions are probably very very reasonable. it would be a waste of time to attempt to disprove any of them because it's probably not possible... but you never know.perhaps it seems like i'm being too picky... I guess I'm just a pedantic kind of gal'I did some searches but couldn't find any good sites about Quine or Duhem. oh well.

Assuming of course that our theories on the way our eyes work are correct. what if our eyes work in a completely different way than we think we do? it seems fair to assume that our theories about our eyes are correct, but it is not a certain thing. The telescope was only an example of an instrument, all instruments are based on theories. even naked eye observations assume that what we see is actually what is there. it may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption. but we can only ever say that what appears to be the result of an observation is dependent on a very large body of assumptions.does this make any difference most of the time? absolutely not. but one day it MIGHT. and you can never be 100% certain. that's all I'm saying.