Is Science subjective or objective...

Scientific study is based on objectivity, if the basis needs to be described in one word. But the real basis is logical reasoning, factually compared analysis, factual proofs and whatever can't be proved goes in the box labeled 'Pending'. Any scientific conclusion is objective. But the rest of us look at the conclusion quite subjectively. Hence, most theories and proofs face critical denial. It is the subjective thinking of the rest of the world, that denies a scientist the right to make a breakthrough(with factual proofs), without facing a single negative opinion. Nary has brought forth a very important question that leads to another question. Are scientists today relying more on subjectivity, hence leading to a greater reliance on subjective knowledge(true belief) than factual?

Let me elaborate on subjectivity. According to Searle: Subjectivity has the further consequence that all of my conscious forms of intentionality that give me information about the world independent of myself are always from a special point of view. The world itself has no point of view, but my access to the world through my conscious states is always perspectival.

This cannot be the basis of scientific inquiry or study, except for the social sciences. Even in social sciences or cognitive science, without an objective approach, any theory or conclusion will be regarded as non-factual. Subjectivity is the perspective and a more opinionated restricted approach to the world. We cannot allow narrowing our approach into one point of view when in scientific inquiry.

There are many that confuse selfishness with Idealism and materialism with Objectivism. I have seen a few in the science industry who live in this confusion. This particular attitude in truth does lead to enquiries becoming more subjective. Science can not be based on individual perspective and opinions. Science relies on truth conditions that are independent of the mind. Any form of analysis based on biases and wishful thinking becomes pseudo-science or philosophical hypothesis.

Quite frankly any form of objective approach towards emotion, feelings, is regarded in general, by most of the general public, as 'heartless'. But most of the cognitive sciences do deal with emotions both subjectively and objectively. It is a never ending emotional argument between the two though!

On a New Enquiry

Though we (humans :) ) at present move up on the rising slope of scientific exploration and achievement, I am intrigued to think about this question - 'Is science limiting itself, because of its very strength?'. Looking at it one way, I can say that science is based on 'Objectivity'.
And this 'objectivity' has proved to be the strength of science since "mankind's first day of science".
As we moved along, even to this very day, science has provided us with answers to various things. Objectivity has surely been the base for it.
Having said the above things, I think there is another very important area we humans are still ignorant about of its very possibility.
And that is - "Subjectivity" in relation to science. Or science in relation to 'subjectivity'.
Even today, there are many areas science is not able to provide answers to.
One of them being a very important aspect of me, you and every human being on this planet.
That is, "emotion".
Thinking on a new level of enquiry, I today stand at a position of question.
And that question is:
"Can there be a science based on subjectivity?"