essay 1: The difference between 'social' and 'natural' sciences (24/02/2023)

Phenomena below, at the same level or above humans in the human prescribed moral worth scale are all technically subjective, though there is far little opinionation when it comes to things such as physics or chemistry. The slight increase in opinionated outlook towards biological sciences (and higher on the scale, sociological) is based on humans' intrinsic nature to exploit its environment to its advantage colliding with the moral codes it creates for itself and living things it seeks to protect. Whereas the strongest liberal may seek to protect every (what it perceives to be a) living being's individuality, even they could not care less whether an individual bacteria is broken down for support in their immune system (let alone the chemical iron stripped from food for use in their blood). The point here is that when usefulness weighs more than morality, just like the 'objectivity' of analytical tools like mathematics, empirical (real) tools such as physics or chemistry gain a sense of objectivity.