Research On Theodore Poter’s Objectivity And Quantification Thought

Objectivity has always been one of the core concepts of the whole philosophy. Science historian, science philosopher and science sociologists have made many attempts, trying to define objectivity from different aspects, in different ways. Theodore· Porter, Professor of University of California Los Angeles, specializes in Science History. He studies objectivity from the public level and the quantify level of scientific career. He illustrates that quantization is an effective mean to achieve objectivity through a large number of cases.Porter thinks objectivity is a symbol of strike back of faithless, quantitation is a effective tool to fight faithless. When the bureaucratic decisions and scientific knowledge are skepted, objectivity armed by digital, quantitation and statistical will appear. The crisis of faith can be saved by these means. Potter has a more broad perspective, standing outside the laboratory. He studies through means used to achieve objectivity, such as digital, quantitation. He thinks that digital quantitative technique is an effective way to eliminate differences, achieve consensus, gain trust and achieve objectivity. The result of scientific knowledge produced in a democratic atmosphere is more objective. In his words, it is "democracy promotes objectivity". Through the study of accounting, engineers businesses and many other industries, Potter found that both the accounting results and engineers plans are results of social shape. So does the situation in the field of science. There is no denying that scientific knowledge was made. Although precision measuring instrument and accurate quantitative method cannot guarantee absolute objective result, it can make the results more objective. In Potter’s opinion, formal objectivity is a kind of objectivity containing subjectivity, because in scientific knowledge, we can’t completely eliminate subjective bias.There is no doubt that Potter is a social constructivism theorists, but his social constructivism concept is different from both SSK and Post-SSK. In terms of overall thought temperament, his thought is closer to SSK. But social construction in his eyes dose not like Bloor’s social determinism who is the core people of SSK, his theory is more moderate.