Science is more objective?

I was going to put my original post, but since Andrew started a similar topic, here's something I wrote in reply to Andrew's note...

Andrew wrote:

We might not be able to ever get to perfect objectivity. It sometimes feels like our very own objectivity lies inside a large pool of subjectivity.
Does this mean that everything is fake unless we observe it?
Subjectively, this is true but objectively this is false..I would wager.
Then again, you can never really get true objectivity...we can get close. That's basically what science is.
There's this view that science should take into consideration that it is not the ultimate point of view. It's just a really good one inside a sphere of a better point of view...a more comprehensive point of view and one that is more human. I don't know what you would call this but I have heard several of my smart friends talk about this.

Basically, one aspect of the argument is that science CAN have some inherent flaws because humans use science and it can be a human perspective. Science is based on observation but our observations could be wrong....but my question is:

Wrong to who? In what way would it be wrong...or just not entirely correct?

Just the fact that you can say that and think that gives your argument some kind of credibility? I need more than that. If you're saying that there is a better view than science and that science should use that view in its pursuits then that is interesting but it just feels like...well...OK, this is just me but science for me brings me out of my own experience. It's so objective that I don't even feel like me sometimes...it's just an objective entity...this other view you're talking about sounds like you're talking about something that is much less objective and when it comes to feeling "more human" because of its subjectivity, I feel very...awkward. It's like a fake scientific view ...trying to be something...subverting the real scientific view...coming through the backdoor...It's like...you're trying to propose something better than science but...why can't THAT be science? I guess you feel it's so subjective that there's no way real empirical evidence can ever be really obtained ....but that's just negative thinking, right?

Tomo wrote:

Interesting. I have to emphasize that my point is not to say that there are something better than science, but to say that I agree with your idea of "getting close".

Now that being said, first, I feel like what brings you out of your own experience is the logic/reasoning behind the science. Plus, the difference with stuff what you call "other than science" is whether or not the object of research could be explained enough by a mere set of physical observations. you might be able to STUDY it scientifically, but that doesn't mean the scientific explanations could represent the whole phenomena you really wanna know about. For example, how would you SCIENTIFICALLY explain social interactions that happen in a classroom SO IT HELPS PREDICT a set of events or result of interactions in future?

And, researchers in the field of "other than science" are aware that they COULD do it other ways... they just seek for better ways to DESCRIBE EVENTS, not just a group of physical objects but more complicated events including the concept of TIME (and PROCESS) (not just the condition of starting point and the ending point but the process of gradual change)... and that doesn't mean that they think science is not the better way but they just are not interested in the non-dynamic standstill explanations.

I feel like whether or not something is empirical is not the matter of subjectivity/objectivity.

Like you said that something well defined has boundaries, I feel like science gives rigid boundaries to understanding of real world and sometimes loses "the whole dynamics" of things going on in the world.