<p>as humans who construct meaning to everything around us, we can say nothing is truly objective, right? which is why if i went to an english class, i could interpret things in many different perspectives.</p>
<p>so, then, why is it that subjects such as math and science claim to be objective and just reflections of what is really there? in one way, i can understand why, since sciences have technical applications. however, i feel as if with the sciences (i'll give math slack because of abstractness, although this does apply), the thinking process is almost forgone in favor merely believing whats supposedly concrete. it's almost as if im accepting someone else's narrative as my own without thinking about it--im just blindly memorizing and accepting it.</p>
<p>i want to get into medicine, but i want to go in with the right perspective. i have the capability to do well in these classes, although i feel that since im constantly concerned with deconstructing things that this might be a detriment to me. thoughts? criticism and advice is welcome, as i feel i need it.</p>
<p>Your problem seems to involve the process by which science and specifically medicine is conceived but this shouldnt be a problem since really you can go about it any way you want as long as you have a goal. Furthermore ofte times deconstruction is the key to future construction.</p>
<p>Science and its laws and axioms are based on experiments that have been repeated hundreds of times with the same outcome. Pretty soon, after all of the evidence has been built up, the imagination can only come up with so many explanations that actually fit. With the sheer amount of evidence backing some of the most fundamental laws, it becomes hard for anyone to make rational arguments for alternative theories. No one is really forced to “accept someone else’s narrative” - but the sheer amount of schooling you would need to be able to look at every piece of evidence and come up with your own narrative makes it so that sometimes the most practical thing to do is to just memorize and accept things, as you say.</p>
<p>Math can be quite subjective sometimes, please do not classify it as a science, as it is anything but. As an example of subjectivity in math, the more beautiful proof wins out, even if both are equally correct, I have seen this happen on tests, points will be taken off for nonconcise proofs.
Also, the thinking process is mostly what the sciences ARE about. In highschool you do not see much of this, but creativity is a major element of science, not only do you need to know what is true, but you must have something always pulling you in the right direction and giving you clues about where to look. I cannot explain it, but often before I have even solved a problem, my mind starts telling me to look in certain places, its like a type of foresight. If scientists were “uncreative” or not deconstructing problems, I guarantee that half of our knowledge would be lost. You can only follow the “rules” of science so far, after that you must be very creative.
Also, notice that math and science have a way of just coming to certain geniuses. Consider George Green; He was isolated on a farm, to this day no one knows exactly how he educated himself, but today a fundamental theorem in vector calculus is named after him. Obviously math is there to be discovered by those who are bright enough.</p>
<p>Science is not about memorization, and although there’s a lot in some lower-level classes (especially Bio!) later it becomes more theoretical and about logic and reasoning, not blind memorization. However, the reasoning and logic is all based on facts, it’s not like an Art paper where you look at a painting and start making things up based on symbolism. </p>
<p>In Physics there’s not much memorization, it’s all about understanding the concepts and more importantly, the Math. Scientists and researchers constantly experiment and hypothesize, they must be very creative. We must learn existing knowledge before we can start to theorize ourselves, don’t you see? How can people become Scientists, Doctors and Engineers if they don’t learn that material first? So yes, there is memorizing, then the logical reasoning comes afterwards. </p>
<p>I’m guessing you’re a Bio major, we have it rough with all that memorizing, especially in 1st and 2nd year classes. But I’ve spoken to upperclassmen who have said that later it’s all about understanding the concepts and it gets more theoretical, there isn’t much memorization later compared to now. You need to memorize facts in order to understand concepts so you can theorize and think abstractly for yourself. </p>
<p>History involves lots of memorization in order to understand the world better, understand underlying political/socioeconomic trends as well as piece the past together. Just like in Science, you need to get the facts in order to get to the next level. Just like an English major needs to read the books in order to analyze and understand, or a Philosophy major will read tons of books in order to conceptualize, or a Theatre major needs to memorize hundreds of lines in order to express himself in a play.</p>
<p>It’s objective in that if the rules you follow hold, then you and a person across the world should be able to perform the same experiment and get similar results. The subjectivity is the part scientists drool over- the chance to test a question in an attempt to find rules that better fit our results or to explain a result that doesn’t have a rule yet. You do have to memorize a lot of stuff at the beginning before you can do your own thing, kind of like you have to learn a lot of new words and syntax in a language before you can write a novel.</p>
<p>“The aims of scientific thought are to see the general in the particular and the eternal in the transitory” -Alfred North Whitehead (This was on a plaque on the entrance to the chemistry building at my college.)</p>
<p>Edit: Stargazer probably put it more eloquently than I did.</p>
<p>Note that in science you are not learning absolute “truths” per se. You are learning models that are predictive because they are very good at 1. explaining current phenomena 2. predict future phenomena.</p>
<p>These scientific models, such as Newtonian physics (assume a complicated object is a single point in space, etc.) work for most objects, but different models need to be used in different situations. For objects traveling near the speed of light, Newtonian physics breaks down and you need Einsteinian physics. For objects that are so small that they start to behave like waves , you need quantum physics.</p>
<p>Science is not absolute, it is based off creating explanatory models. You form a hypothesis, test it, and if you can’t reject it(there is no positive proof in science), it is a good model.</p>
<p>That’s why social sciences are still “science.” In the physical sciences, you explain natural phenomena with models. In social sciences, you explain how people behave with idealized models (economics, sociology, etc.).</p>