Are we bad scientists?

It's funny how humans assert their knowledge of the world. We seamlessly use subjective terms such as "like" and "dislike" alongside objective designators such as "good" and "bad". To help those a little wet behind the ears, something that is subjective is something that is experienced or expressed by an agent (a person, or other rational being). Subjective things include thoughts, feelings, emotions, sense perceptions, and so on. Objective things are those that would exist regardless of whether an agent would be there to perceive them. [Edit: According to my own definitions, it would seem "good" and "bad" would also be classified as subjective things. My original intent was to make a note of how the words "good" and "bad" are used in an objective manner; i.e., that something is objectively "good" or "bad", which is of course ridiculous.] This would include things such as gravity, time, matter, and so on. The problem for humans is that there seems to be an incompatibility between subjectivity and objectivity: we evaluate our lives from both perspectives, but how can some things be simply opinion, and others brute fact? Would the necessity of the former not undermine the latter? Let me explain.

Because we are humans, our experience of life is inherently subjective: all information gathered about our experience is interpreted, consciously or unconsciously. It is not possible to have pure sense perceptions (except, perhaps, in infancy). When one looks at a painting, one is aware that it is a painting, what the forms in the painting are. Touch is linked to knowledge of the stimulus or perceived stimulus. Because all sense perceptions are interpreted, they cannot be objective. Interpretations form associations with objects that would not exist if there were no agents to form them. This is a fact. But wait a minute: how am I able to posit this statement as fact? Would that not preclude its objectivity? And as a I human am I not limited to a subjective perspective?

Before I try to answer those questions, I want to make it clear that just because humans are trapped in a subjective perspective, that does not mean there is no objective reality. Gravity would exist if there were no agents to perceive it. It is a force. It influences mass, animate or inanimate. Astronomical observations of distant galaxies, stars, etc. show that those bodies have mass have been interacting with each other for several millions, if not billions, of years. Such an interaction does not require human perception. It could be argued that other rational beings in different parts of the universe could have witnessed these interactions, but since the existence of extraterrestrial life is not known (or at least acknowledged. Read: The Disclosure Project) I cannot make that assumption.

It is easy to question the validity or truthfulness of any of the statements I have made, given that I have admitted a subjective perspective; however, subjectivity does not completely undermine truth. I can say that I exist because I have permanence through time. When I sleep in my bedroom by myself, no other agent is perceiving me (that I am aware of), and yet I will still exist when I regain consciousness. Thus, I exist regardless of whether I am being perceived, and this statement is therefore true.

I can say that human experience is inherently subjective for the same reason. Interpretation adds meaning to an object that would not exist without the agent that gives it. There is just no way of avoiding it.

So perhaps subjectivity and objectivity are compatible. We are unable to escape interpretation, but that doesn't mean our interpretations can't be truthful.