Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality

This question is really about the scientific method and what underpins it.
Science is not just a method in the way that it is so often characterised. Science is an attitude to learning and investigation that differs from all others because it continually measures it's results against reality. The methods of science have been developed as the best means of negating bias, filtering out falsehoods and achieving the most accurate results when researching the physical world.
Independenetly repeatable research, verification through prediction, refutation of hypotheses through experimentation, statisitical error analysis, peer review etc etc etc.
These are all components of the scientific method but what underlies them and makes science what it is in the first place?
It seems to me that implicit in the scientific method is an assumption that there is an objective reality and that science is the quest to better understand this objective reality by discovering universal truths.
When we "do science" what are we testing our theories against? What makes one theory better than another? When we include experimental errors in results is there conceivably a result that is without error (i.e. a truth)?My question is - Does there need to be an objective reality with universal truths for the scientific method to be valid?
Is it possible to be a scientist and not believe in an objective reality containing ultimate truths?

But is the matrix itself not formed within a physical reality that has laws that exist in objective reality external to the matrix?
How could the matrix itself exist if that were not so?Also if not a degree of verisimilitude what is it that makes one predictive model better than another?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

On what do you conclude the success and progress of science if not an increasing understanding of reality.Supernatural to me does not mean undetectable. In the context of EvC it usually means unable to question scientifically (i.e. using te scientific method) and I dispute that there is anything that has physical consequences in the real world to which that can apply.

My question is - Does the scientific method make sense without the implicit assumption of an external objective reality?I think talk of a matrix etc. is a red herring as eventually there will be a reality in which the matrix exists and the matrix itself will be built on scientific principles of cause and effect.If there is no objective reality against which scientific theories are measured against then what does it mean to say one theory is superior to another? What does it mean to say one experiment contains less errors than another?Forget the matrix this is about the scientific method and the implict unspoken assumptions that are made when undertaking scientific investigation.I don't claim to know the answer but I obviously have a bias and suggest for the sake of debate that without an objective reality the scientific method has no basis.
I would therefore conclude that the success of the scientifc method implies that there is necessarily an objective reality out there whether we can ever truly grasp it or not.

Your example of a ghost has a lot of assumptions and asks a lot of questions of the physical world. We may not know about ghosts but we do know about sight
1) The ghost in question must have been made of a material that was capable of reflecting light within the visible spectrum to be seen by the human eye.
2) This implies that it could be detected by cameras and it's material structure investigated in terms of atoms, electromagnetic forces etc.
3) If you are claiming your ghost was not reflecting light but generating it then again that follows known physical principles of energy conservation etc.However you look at it either you are proposing that there is a whole array of physics regards the possible behaviour of photons or that the ghost in question must have at some point acted in a way that is directly scientifically observable.To just call it "supernatural" means nothing really.

Predictive as compared to........reality?Superior predictive power has no meaning without reference to the objective reality it is predicting against?Does it?

After calling the matrix thing a red herring I would like to contradict myself and go back to it (sorry!)Surely the ultimate aim of science within the matrix bound universe would be to discover all the laws of the matrix AND the root cause of all these laws. I.e. the matrix itself (whether practically possible or not)
The ultimate aim science would then be to understand the laws of the universe in which the matrix itself exists.This could go on ad infinitum in theory but eventually there would have to be an objective reality in which all of it exists and to which there may or may not be a root cause.My point remains that in the widest possible context science necessarily assumes the existence of an objective reality. Without that there is no basis for science.

I did not mean meaning in the "meaning of life sort of way"Predictive power is useful in it's own right but what is it that makes Einsteins GTR a better predictive model than Newtons theory of gravitation for example? Why are it's predictions more accurate?Proximity to the truth of objective reality is the only explanation? Do you have another?Is it conceivable that there could be a theory that could predict every gravitational interraction completely accurately? Would this be a perfect model or a "true" theory? is there a difference?

I think you have very narrow view of what science is.Why do we study the beginnings of the universe? The beginings of life? The nature of cosciousness?
Simply to make useful predictions? No.
These are deep scientific questions which we may may not provide any predictive power at all. We may never know the answers to these questions .
But that won't stop us asking.
Science is ultimately driven by human desire for knowledge not just predictive power (useful a tool as that may undeniably be).Whether in a matrix or not the ultimate aim of science, whether achievable or not is, understanding not prediction.Prediction is a useful tool for testing the accuracy of your theories and a boon to technology but not the ultimate aim of science.

this is the problem.Photons, energy etc. are physical phenomenon. You cannot sweep aside all we know about them to claim that "supernatural" phenomenon use them in some ways but not others as they see fit.Eyes detect light. So do cameras. If the eyes can detect ghosts but not cameras then it is not "seeing" in any physical sense and is not due to light. This implies the vision has more to do with something internal to the brain than anything physical. In short the subject is imagining it.

We are almost at the point of splitting hairs.I would argue that without the theoretical foundation there would be no applied science. Without an understanding of the underlying theroetical principles there can be only limited prediction possible.We can predict how chemicals will interact because we have a theory of atoms. We can predict how satellites will orbit because we have a theoretical understanding of gravitation etc.Does engineering presume or require an objective reality? No probably not. Just a consistent one.However science in it's deepest form, the form that enables us to understand as well as predict does presume and require an objective reality to exist.

Objective reality is a reality based on the primacy of existence as opposed to consciousness. Cosciousness exists and is subject to existence rather than the opposite, subjective reality, whereby reality exists as a consequence of consciousness.In short there is a physical universe with or without consciousness available to perceive it.
I am proposing that such a position is necessarily assumed by science and that this assumption is inherent in it's methods. I am suggesting that science is effectively searching for the true nature of this objective reality.If it behaves like an objective reality does it matter or not? Good question. If it is all just a matrix style reality does it matter as long as it all seems objectively real?I would say yes. The truth ultimately does matter to science (and to me!)The red pill or the blue pill Mr Anderson. Your choice?

Sorry to bang on but...this does need to be cleared up.Light is light. We know what light is. Eyes detect light. We know how eyes work. Cameras detect light. We know how cameras work too. If a ghost is "seen" in any physical way it is reflecting or emmitting light. Full stop. Cameras will detect this light as they are designed to do. Eyes and cameras detect the same things.Your supernatural ghost phenomenon may not be subject to known physical laws but eyes are and so are cameras, not to mention light.If it is not emmitting light then it was not "seen" by the eyes nor the camera in question.If it is only detectable by the human not the camera then it is not emmitting or reflecting anything that eyes can detect, as the camera would also detect this, which only leaves us with the possibility that the "vision" was actually internal to the brain in some way and not actually physically there in any way that has any physical relevance at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well yes and no. It would not be half as much fun if it were too easy!! Agreed. I would personally call that engineering but that is splitting hairs. All this requires is consistency of physical laws within whatever physical realm these exist. An engineer building a bridge does not care if the physical laws that he is applying work outside the matrix or not as long as they work for the bridge he is building inside the matrix (however as a thinking human being the engineer might be interested in the fact his reality is actually a matrix style creation.....but that is another question) I think the scientific method and aims of pure science would be very different and unrecognisable from what we call science if an objective reality were not presumed by science. Independently repeatable experimentation, verification through prediction, error analysis and the search for universal laws (e.g. gravitation, 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.) are all meaningless unless there is an absolute with which to be compared (Note - It matters not whether this absolute can in practice be observed free from subjectivity - it's existence is all that is required)
When we measure the charge of an electron are we saying in the presence of my consciousness it has charge X?. In the prescence of your consciousness it has charge Y? In the presence of consciousness in general it has charge Z? Or is science concluding that the charge of an electron is E and that this value is fixed irrespective of who is conscious of it, indeed whether or not anyone is conscious of it and regardless of where in the universe it may find itself?
Electrons I accept may just be a convenient human model but as we get ever more accurate measurements of the charge of an electron what exactly is it we are getting closer to if not some property of an objective reality?

Scientists use models. Models are simulations. If scientific models are not simulations of an objective reality what are they simulations of?We all know in practice what we mean to improve a model and yes you can simply say that a model that leads to better predictions is a better model.
However science is not just about prediction it is about understanding.
Are you really saying that a model that provides a deeper understanding of a physical phenomenon is not superior to one that successfully makes predictions without adding a "why"?The periodic table predicts chemical reactions. A full understanding of atomic theory explains them (and therefore the periodic table)Is a better model not one that better explains a physical phenomenon? Is a theory that provides a better understanding not one that is closer to the "truth" of reality?
Better prediction is usually a happy side efect of a theory that better explains. I would suggest that such a theory (one that explains more deeply, that predicts more accurately and that enables us to ask even deeper questions) as more closely modelling an external objective reality.It is the obvious explanation and there seems to be no other put forward as an alternative.
Scientific understanding does implicitly presume that there is an objective reality to be understood.
How can it be otherwise?