Arguments Against Objectivity

Donna Haraway and Vandana Shiva have argued against the idea that science needs objectivity. Haraway explains that objectivity, “has been used to signify a leap out of the marked body and into a conquering gaze from nowhere,” (Haraway 581). She says that objectivity is the, “transcendence and splitting of subject and object,” (Haraway 583). Their arguments against objectivity look at the role of individual objectivity within science. However, science needs objectivity in order to obtain the most truthful account of the natural world. Individual objectivity will never be obtained, and suggesting that individual scientists should be objective may imply that they can be objective, thus they will overlook their blind spots. Objectivity, instead, …show more content…
Reductionism is the idea that macroscale, complex objects can be broken down into the interactions between smaller, simpler objects, and further until it is broken down into the interactions of sub-atomic particles. The main argument for the truth of reductionism is that biology can be explained by chemical reactions and chemical reactions by physics. The main argument against the truth of reductionism is that there are inconsistencies in biology that chemical reactions cannot explain, and likewise with chemical reactions and physics. However, jumping to the conclusion that inconsistencies prove that reductionism is false is too quick. Just because some biology cannot be explained now by chemistry or physics does not lead to the conclusion that biology cannot be explained by chemistry or physics in the future. Not everything about chemistry and physics is known. Therefore, the truth of reductionism is still up for debate. However, there is usefulness in explaining biology by looking into its chemical reactions. Likewise, there is usefulness in dividing a complex whole of an ecosystem into simpler, more diverse