I think what you’re describing isn’t science being subjective (imo it is the most objective thing humans have made - if done right), it’s that a full definition of something just isn’t possible because the world isn’t black and white. The subjective thing is where science intersects with philosophy. For example:
science: how humans have evolved over time
philosophy: what defines being human
In that sense, it scientifically very much is possible and plausible for something to be scientifically more and less human on a scale in comparison to what philosophy says a human is.
The exact same way how gender isn’t M or F, a living being doesn’t have to be exclusively Human or non-human.
According to science the body temperature of humans is petty consistent. We could use philosophy to declare this as the defining trait of what is human. This way we can now already compare how human everything is on a scale!Just by looking at a thermometer!
We can make objective measurements of temperatures, but do you think these measurements would hold any objective meaning over how human something is⸮ Of course not. Our definition of humans was entirely subjective and flawed on top. There is no way to objectively define humans, it would all be based on your subjective perception.
And since we don’t have objective definitions for such things, it would be pretty rude to tell the shadows on the wall what they are or aren’t casted by, especially when they tell you otherwise. Even if you’re not trying to stuff everything into a neat little box.
We can make objective measurements of temperatures, but do you think these measurements would hold any objective meaning over how human something is⸮
Yes absolutely. The scientific human is the current average. In a sense, how scientifically close to one is could be better described as how close to the average human one is. And in that sense, nobody is the scientific human. Nobody actually is the average.
Our definition of humans was entirely subjective and flawed on top. There is no way to objectively define humans, it would all be based on your subjective perception.
Well, through a turn of events the entire group of scientists who were put in charge of finding out what the average of human is are all lizardpeople. They think that being able to lick your eyeballs is an essential part of human. So when they were recruiting their subjects they have only been choosing those who can lick their eyeballs.
So they make a scan of all of their subjects and crunch through the numbers and come up with the average. This average sure is objective, but the group they’ve sampled obviously isn’t.
But well, this average now has been accepted as the scientific human. A human. Who licks their eyeballs. Not being able to do so is now considered weird, according to science.
…what? Those lizard people suck at science then. Doing research requires you to get a sample size that broadly encompasses everything. Specifically choosing your sample doesn’t hold up to modern scientific standards.
But what do we mean by “everybody”? That already depends on what the study tries to achieve in the first place. Let’s take your example of “can humans lick their eyeballs” and add the extra issue in there of human/lizard crossbreeds being a thing. In this case, you would have to take a sample of humans, lizards and everything in between. With that, you could create a dataset of who can and can’t, and would probably come to the conclusion that the more lizard-like someone is, the more likely they are to be able to lick their eyeballs.
Following along that, assuming that lizards count as human, it would mean that there is no clear average of eyeball licking capability and would therefore not factor in to if it is human or not. Just like there also isn’t an average skin color. Maybe a majority but it’s a distribution.
People, on average though, do have a working liver.
Specifically choosing your sample doesn’t hold up to modern scientific standards.
But we have to, no? Because we don’t want to include the featherless chicken, right? They even have one (or sometimes multiple) livers.
Maybe a majority but it’s a distribution.
You’re right, perhaps humans are just a cluster of datapoints on an x-dimensional chart, but if we want to calculate an average of that, we are still going to need to draw a border around it, because we don’t want to include all living things.
But we have to, no? Because we don’t want to include the featherless chicken, right? They even have one (or sometimes multiple) livers.
Then they share that trait with a human and are therefore x% similar to humans. perfectly acceptable. I’m not saying “liver = human”, i’m saying that a liver usually is one of many traits of the average modern societal human.
Choosing a dataset should be done in regards to what it is more relevant for.
If your dataset is good then drawing the circle smaller or bigger won’t effect the result too much.
Edit: even better than drawing a circle, weighting for the relevance of xzy in your data
That’s a fair viewpoint. But when I say science is subjective, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I’m saying it’s an opportunity. We have so much to learn about the science of subjectivity. My hobby is developing new technology that works by manipulating subjectivity. Subjective technology. Rewriting perception through belief. You know, magic.
Magic is a really important field of technology for trans people and otherkin, because the subjectivities we’re forced to endure are so dysphoric. By creating tools to change our perceptions of ourselves, and our perception of others, we can create perceptual justice in the areas where biological technology isn’t there yet.
The Freedom of Form Foundation is doing really fascinating work to create prostheses for therians… But I’m not willing to wait for cyborg tails and genetically engineered fur. That’s thinking too small, too conservatively. Too realistically. Abandon the philosophy of realism, and we can do more. I’m a goddess in the astral plane, and My glamours, illusions, and rhetoric are expressing My species to those around Me. And I’ve been helping My community with this stuff, too.
I think what you’re describing isn’t science being subjective (imo it is the most objective thing humans have made - if done right), it’s that a full definition of something just isn’t possible because the world isn’t black and white. The subjective thing is where science intersects with philosophy. For example:
In that sense, it scientifically very much is possible and plausible for something to be scientifically more and less human on a scale in comparison to what philosophy says a human is.
The exact same way how gender isn’t M or F, a living being doesn’t have to be exclusively Human or non-human.
According to science the body temperature of humans is petty consistent. We could use philosophy to declare this as the defining trait of what is human. This way we can now already compare how human everything is on a scale!Just by looking at a thermometer!
We can make objective measurements of temperatures, but do you think these measurements would hold any objective meaning over how human something is⸮ Of course not. Our definition of humans was entirely subjective and flawed on top. There is no way to objectively define humans, it would all be based on your subjective perception.
And since we don’t have objective definitions for such things, it would be pretty rude to tell the shadows on the wall what they are or aren’t casted by, especially when they tell you otherwise. Even if you’re not trying to stuff everything into a neat little box.
Yes absolutely. The scientific human is the current average. In a sense, how scientifically close to one is could be better described as how close to the average human one is. And in that sense, nobody is the scientific human. Nobody actually is the average.
Yep, there’s where philosophy starts.
Well, through a turn of events the entire group of scientists who were put in charge of finding out what the average of human is are all lizardpeople. They think that being able to lick your eyeballs is an essential part of human. So when they were recruiting their subjects they have only been choosing those who can lick their eyeballs.
So they make a scan of all of their subjects and crunch through the numbers and come up with the average. This average sure is objective, but the group they’ve sampled obviously isn’t.
But well, this average now has been accepted as the scientific human. A human. Who licks their eyeballs. Not being able to do so is now considered weird, according to science.
…what? Those lizard people suck at science then. Doing research requires you to get a sample size that broadly encompasses everything. Specifically choosing your sample doesn’t hold up to modern scientific standards.
But what do we mean by “everybody”? That already depends on what the study tries to achieve in the first place. Let’s take your example of “can humans lick their eyeballs” and add the extra issue in there of human/lizard crossbreeds being a thing. In this case, you would have to take a sample of humans, lizards and everything in between. With that, you could create a dataset of who can and can’t, and would probably come to the conclusion that the more lizard-like someone is, the more likely they are to be able to lick their eyeballs.
Following along that, assuming that lizards count as human, it would mean that there is no clear average of eyeball licking capability and would therefore not factor in to if it is human or not. Just like there also isn’t an average skin color. Maybe a majority but it’s a distribution.
People, on average though, do have a working liver.
Edit: my point still stands but fuck I can’t read
But we have to, no? Because we don’t want to include the featherless chicken, right? They even have one (or sometimes multiple) livers.
You’re right, perhaps humans are just a cluster of datapoints on an x-dimensional chart, but if we want to calculate an average of that, we are still going to need to draw a border around it, because we don’t want to include all living things.
Then they share that trait with a human and are therefore x% similar to humans. perfectly acceptable. I’m not saying “liver = human”, i’m saying that a liver usually is one of many traits of the average modern societal human.
Choosing a dataset should be done in regards to what it is more relevant for.
If your dataset is good then drawing the circle smaller or bigger won’t effect the result too much.
Edit: even better than drawing a circle, weighting for the relevance of xzy in your data
I’m not sure if it would be desirable to categorise people like that, like to be able to say someone is x% human. It would either be
And that’s exactly why we use subjective philosophy to define a human instead
That’s a fair viewpoint. But when I say science is subjective, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I’m saying it’s an opportunity. We have so much to learn about the science of subjectivity. My hobby is developing new technology that works by manipulating subjectivity. Subjective technology. Rewriting perception through belief. You know, magic.
Magic is a really important field of technology for trans people and otherkin, because the subjectivities we’re forced to endure are so dysphoric. By creating tools to change our perceptions of ourselves, and our perception of others, we can create perceptual justice in the areas where biological technology isn’t there yet.
The Freedom of Form Foundation is doing really fascinating work to create prostheses for therians… But I’m not willing to wait for cyborg tails and genetically engineered fur. That’s thinking too small, too conservatively. Too realistically. Abandon the philosophy of realism, and we can do more. I’m a goddess in the astral plane, and My glamours, illusions, and rhetoric are expressing My species to those around Me. And I’ve been helping My community with this stuff, too.