3 ms·

You're completely right on that the generalization of science as an objective process onto itself is unfounded at best and dangerous as worst, but isn't that a

You're completely right on that the generalization of science as an objective process onto itself is unfounded at best and dangerous as worst, but isn't that a sign of growing pains in science? As science progresses, both in the easily quantifiable and more abstract fields, we should expect an eventual progression towards a further, better measures for fields such as cognitive psychology. It took physics hundreds of years to be verifiable on a large degree, and we shouldn't hold relatively newer fields to the same standard, and scientist have to start somewhere. Unto that goal, isn't it more dangerous to stifle and stall newer fields because they're experiencing growing pains?

thanatropism 10y ago
> isn't that a sign of growing pains in science? Could be that; or could be that scienticians are investigating the wrong questions altogether in these massively nonreplicable fields. Face it: science needs to learn to (1) be open to criticism (2) become well-acquainted with the critique of science (as it's expected to be well acquainted with statistical methods now) and (3) help the from-outside-science "science studies" fields grow rather than nipping them in their bud for their still-infant understanding of the meat (rather than the processes) of science. Much like no one should be allowed to go into research with the poor grasp of probability theory that "p-value imagineers" display, no one should go into research while imagining they're being inducted into a priesthood of objective thinking. Maybe Derrida is a confidence trickster, but it's not him who's "stifling" science. If anything, the Neil deGrasse Tysons of the world are stifling open societal discussion of where fundamental physics is actually going (which is -- nowhere for about 40 years now) and what "scientific studies" as portrayed by daytime TV really mean. Scientific idealism isn't doing society any favors and isn't doing science any favors. Maybe it's doing favors to cynical tenure-track professors who need to massively oversell the meaning and potential impact of their work, but that's neither here nor there: graft and rent-seeking are as old as humanity.

thanatropism 10y ago

> isn't that a sign of growing pains in science? Could be that; or could be that scienticians are investigating the wrong questions altogether in these massively nonreplicable fields. Face it: science needs to learn to (1) be open to criticism (2) become well-acquainted with the critique of science (as it's expected to be well acquainted with statistical methods now) and (3) help the from-outside-science "science studies" fields grow rather than nipping them in their bud for their still-infant understanding of the meat (rather than the processes) of science. Much like no one should be allowed to go into research with the poor grasp of probability theory that "p-value imagineers" display, no one should go into research while imagining they're being inducted into a priesthood of objective thinking. Maybe Derrida is a confidence trickster, but it's not him who's "stifling" science. If anything, the Neil deGrasse Tysons of the world are stifling open societal discussion of where fundamental physics is actually going (which is -- nowhere for about 40 years now) and what "scientific studies" as portrayed by daytime TV really mean. Scientific idealism isn't doing society any favors and isn't doing science any favors. Maybe it's doing favors to cynical tenure-track professors who need to massively oversell the meaning and potential impact of their work, but that's neither here nor there: graft and rent-seeking are as old as humanity.