Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Just how objective is science?

A Correction to this article was published on 29 March 1984

The supposed objectivity of science has come into question. Recent historical studies reveal instances in which scientific knowledge has not been strictly controlled by observation statements in turn established beyond reasonable doubt by rigorous scientific method. The scientific method has not always proven adequate; scientific observations have, at times, reflected personal biases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bondi, H. Vistas Astr. 1, 155–162 (1955).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Magyar, G. Soc. Stud. Sci. 7, 241–267 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nye, M. Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 125–156 (1980).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hetherington, N. Ann. Sci. 28, 19–25 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradley, J. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 35, 637–661 (1729).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Williams, M. J. Hist. Astr. 10, 102–116 (1979).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bloom, T. J. Hist. Astr. 9, 117–122 (1978).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Austin, R. Br. J. Hist. Sci. 3, 275–284 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hetherington, N. J. Br. astr. Ass. 90, 20–29 (1979).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hart, R., thesis, Boston Univ. (1973).

  11. Hetherington, N. Q. Jl R. astr. Soc. 13, 25–39 (1972); 15, 392–418 (1974); J. Hist. Astr. 5, 52–53 (1974); 6, 115–125 (1975).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hetherington, N. Isis 65, 390–393 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hetherington, N. J. Hist. Astr 7, 73–98 (1976).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Berendzen, R. & Hart, R. J. Hist. Astr. 4, 46–56, 73–98 (1973).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Berendzen, R., Hart, R. & Seeley, D. Man Discovers the Galaxies (Watson, New York, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stenflo, J. Sol. Phys. 14, 263–273 (1970).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hetherington, N. Q. Jl. R. astr. Soc. 16, 235–244 (1975).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hetherington, N. Q. Jl R. astr. Soc. 21, 246–252 (1980).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Eddington, A. Stars and Atoms, 53 (Clarendon, Oxford, 1927).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenstein, J., Oke, J. & Shipman, H. Astrophys. J. 169, 563–566 (1971).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lowell, P. Mars (Houghton, Mifflin, Boston, 1895).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hoyt, W. Lowell and Mars (University of Arizona, Tucson, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hetherington, N. Leafl. astr. Soc. Pacif. 501, 1–8 (1971): J. Hist. Ideas 42, 159–161 (1981); J. Br. astr. Ass. 86, 303–308 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Campbell, W. Science 4, 231–238 (1896).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Russell, H. Outlook 114, 781–783 (1916).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kennedy, J. & Uphoff, H. J. Parapsychol. 3, 226–245 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Estes, W., Am. Scient. 63, 649–655 (1975).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rosenthal, R. Et. cetera 34, 252–264 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenthal, R. Am. Psychol. 33, 1005–1008 (1978); Expimenter Effects in Behavior Research (Irvington, New York 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Brush, S. Bull. atom. Scient. 32, 40–43 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith, R. The Expanding Universe: Astronomy's ‘Great Debate’ 1900-1931, 136 (Cambridge University Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hubble, E. Astrophys. J. 81, 334–335 (1935).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Baade, W. Evolution of Galaxies, 28–30 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldsmith, D. in The Heritage of Copernicus: Theories “More Pleasing to the Mind” (ed. Neyman, J.) 63–94 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gilkey, L. in The Nature of Scientific Discovery (ed. Gingerich, O.) 538–546 (Smithsonian, Washington, D. C., 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Broad, W. & Wade, N. Betrayers of the Truth (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hetherington, N. Just how objective is science?. Nature 306, 727–730 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1038/306727a0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/306727a0

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing