The alternative to scientific objectivism is called relativism.
If you think that you are creating your own reality right now, why don't you see if you can make yourself fly? Having trouble?
Not only does the relativist viewpoint disagree with observations of the Universe, it is also logically inconsistent. It is self-refuting. See Schick and Vaughn, page 325:
The word "theory" in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) does NOT mean the same as "theorem" in mathematics. A mathematical theorem can be proven deductively to be absolutely true. Theories in the physical sciences have a lot of evidence to back them up, but they may be disproven by a single counter-example at any time.
The National Academy of Sciences definition of fact:
An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as true.
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that
apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not
merit equal time in physics classrooms."
--Stephen Jay Gould
The National Academy of Sciences definition of theory:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed
to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after
repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated
that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it.
Reference
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
A construct is "a nontestable statement to account for a set of observations.
The living organisms on Earth may be accounted for by the statement 'God
made them' or the statement 'They evolved.' The first statement is a
construct, the second a theory. Most biologists would even call
evolution a fact."
--Michael Shermer,
Why People Believe Weird Things, page 20
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham) [1285-1349]. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Reference:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid
The structure of the Solar System is a good example of the application of
Occam's Razor. The geocentric system requires planets circling about empty
points, with epicycles added to account for the non-uniform motions.
Copernicus' heliocentric solved the problems without need for epicycles and
the associated assumptions. "Adding epicycles" is modern jargon for
complicating an explanation beyond the point of confidence; it may be time
to stop trying to make the old explanation work and start looking for a new
hypothesis.
Occam's Razor is a "heuristic", which means that it does not have a
theoretical base. It is something that is usually good to do. Important
to be aware that heuristics can fail; theoretically derived rules normally
don't.
Sure! Almost every time. The Universe is complicated and the simplest
explanation is probably not correct. Then why use Occam's Razor?
Because one should only add new assumptions when forced to do so by the
evidence, not on a whim. Occam's Razor keeps Science on track by not
allowing it to wander too far afield.
An assumption is something taken to be true without proof. Assumptions are
necessary because nobody knows everything. An assumption is not necessarily
a guess - sometimes an assumption is made based on some knowledge of the situation.
You might call it an educated guess. This is in contrast to what is known as
a WAG (wild-ass guess) in which the guesser really knows nothing and is
guessing randomly.
A skeptic asks for evidence before accepting a claim. Anecdotes and "everyone knows it" aren't enough. Skeptics are open-minded enough to look at evidence and decide whether to accept the claim, but not so open-minded that their brains fall out.
Take careful note of the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It's from Carl Sagan. Whenever someone makes a really far-out claim, DON'T
just take it at face value. Ask for some real evidence in support of the claim.
A skeptic is not the same as a DENIER.
For a denier, there is never enough evidence. There are Holocaust deniers,
evolution deniers, HIV/AIDS deniers, ...
A cynic questions everybody's motives, figuring all actions are self-interested and/or self-serving. A real cynic is annoying. There are, however, some times when a cynical approach is useful - even helpful. We mean simply that there are some times that a cynical approach will get you the answers you need.
The old saying "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is" is still valid. Take, for example, the download program Kazaa. Millions use it for copying MP3 files on the Web. It was created by a company (profit expected) then given away for free. Questions are appropriate. What's the payoff? What do they get out of this? The answer is that Kazaa contains an unheralded payload - a package from Brilliant Digital that makes your computer part of a large computer processing network. Brilliant can access your computer and use it for their purposes, for which they get paid. They get to sell the use of your computer. That's the payoff.
If an e-mail or telemarketer makes you the most "wonderful" offer that will supposedly make you rich, beautiful, smart, or something, think first. Why are they offering you this? What's their payoff? Telemarketing isn't free; the promoter has to pay for it.