You can, in fact, make evidence up or make claims completely without evidence, and both of these things happen in science all the time.
Religion is dirty, inconsistent, and biased
Science is dirty, inconsistent, and biased - that doesn’t mean science is diminished by our knowing and acknowledging that.
We shouldn’t make arguments that pretend science is anything but what it is, or we’re engaging in the same polemics that religious zealots do.
I think it depends on what you mean by “science.” I thought of this post as referring to the scientific method, a process by which we can determine truth within the limits of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and other bounds on what can actually be known.
Science meaning the generally agreed upon scientific positions is somewhat of a social phenomenon too. For example, the perception of the negative health effects of sugar within the scientific community was affected by how it was funded by vendors of sugary drinks.
I chose to interpret it as the scientific method because otherwise, the meme wouldn’t make sense.
Your definition of science would certainly fit within my own, and I agree with your sentiment - if it does not go far enough. The scientific method is also a construct. The concepts that make what science is are constructs.
Humans make what science is, so it will always be mediated by human language and culture.
How should we seek truth? Alternatively, is there no way to continually, procedurally, and reproducibly seek facts?
To be clearer: does the position that human language and culture as a mediator prevent us from learning true and consistent things about the world?
My preferred answer to that question is through what Harding describes as Strong Objectivity, although we might choose others.
It’s not that culture and language preclude us from finding the truth, it’s that we need to have an understanding that truth is always mediated - there is no such thing as purely objective, bias-free, “truth”. So the position that science and technology are cultural products precludes the idea of “truth” but not the idea of consistency. Put differently, yes, even cranky critical social scientists go to the doctor.
If this is the point you are making, you are doing a mediocre job of it while simultaneously making people angry. Neither of which is making your point apparent or relevant to the discussion.
Epistemology is interesting, and many people would benefit from learning more about the subject and how to apply it to their own understanding of the world. The street epistemology series on YouTube (or wherever it is hosted now) has some interesting reactions of the average young adults reaction to experiencing it first hand.
Biases are interesting, and most people would benefit from an exploration of their own biases.
But… Devolving threads because someone is mixing colloquial usages of words and scientific terms, even in a thread about science, is asinine. Until the misuse of the words creates an actual tangible mistake in the discussion, it makes discussion and communication incredibly slow.
No, this is just the end to a side discussion about objectivity - my main critique is that disagreement among adherents to a given religion should not be a reason to dismiss them.
But I’ll admit I’m having more fun than I am trying to really educate, and agree with your assessment that I am doing a mediocre job at best.
As for making people angry (or, more likely, annoyed) - apologies! My aim is to challenge, not annoy. Mostly.
Yeah, no. Science is also socially constructed. That doesn’t make it less useful.
See: Fleck, Genesis & Development of a Scientific Fact
deleted by creator
You can, in fact, make evidence up or make claims completely without evidence, and both of these things happen in science all the time.
Religion is dirty, inconsistent, and biased Science is dirty, inconsistent, and biased - that doesn’t mean science is diminished by our knowing and acknowledging that.
We shouldn’t make arguments that pretend science is anything but what it is, or we’re engaging in the same polemics that religious zealots do.
deleted by creator
Yeah! Check it out.
deleted by creator
…
I think it depends on what you mean by “science.” I thought of this post as referring to the scientific method, a process by which we can determine truth within the limits of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and other bounds on what can actually be known.
Science meaning the generally agreed upon scientific positions is somewhat of a social phenomenon too. For example, the perception of the negative health effects of sugar within the scientific community was affected by how it was funded by vendors of sugary drinks.
I chose to interpret it as the scientific method because otherwise, the meme wouldn’t make sense.
Your definition of science would certainly fit within my own, and I agree with your sentiment - if it does not go far enough. The scientific method is also a construct. The concepts that make what science is are constructs.
Humans make what science is, so it will always be mediated by human language and culture.
How should we seek truth? Alternatively, is there no way to continually, procedurally, and reproducibly seek facts? To be clearer: does the position that human language and culture as a mediator prevent us from learning true and consistent things about the world?
My preferred answer to that question is through what Harding describes as Strong Objectivity, although we might choose others.
It’s not that culture and language preclude us from finding the truth, it’s that we need to have an understanding that truth is always mediated - there is no such thing as purely objective, bias-free, “truth”. So the position that science and technology are cultural products precludes the idea of “truth” but not the idea of consistency. Put differently, yes, even cranky critical social scientists go to the doctor.
If this is the point you are making, you are doing a mediocre job of it while simultaneously making people angry. Neither of which is making your point apparent or relevant to the discussion.
Epistemology is interesting, and many people would benefit from learning more about the subject and how to apply it to their own understanding of the world. The street epistemology series on YouTube (or wherever it is hosted now) has some interesting reactions of the average young adults reaction to experiencing it first hand.
Biases are interesting, and most people would benefit from an exploration of their own biases.
But… Devolving threads because someone is mixing colloquial usages of words and scientific terms, even in a thread about science, is asinine. Until the misuse of the words creates an actual tangible mistake in the discussion, it makes discussion and communication incredibly slow.
No, this is just the end to a side discussion about objectivity - my main critique is that disagreement among adherents to a given religion should not be a reason to dismiss them.
But I’ll admit I’m having more fun than I am trying to really educate, and agree with your assessment that I am doing a mediocre job at best.
As for making people angry (or, more likely, annoyed) - apologies! My aim is to challenge, not annoy. Mostly.