I think I understand what you and the Collins article are saying, but I don't agree that this denies the existence of objective knowledge. Rather, it is unconce

I think I understand what you and the Collins article are saying, but I don't agree that this denies the existence of objective knowledge. Rather, it is unconcerned with objective knowledge beyond its purview of understanding social pressures, even as it deals with scientists seeking objective knowledge. Maybe I just don't properly understand the whole science wars thing. It seems so obvious as to be uncontroversial that science is a thing people do and can be studied as such, but this is probably an unhelpful strawman (steelman?) I've substituted for what's really being argued. Or maybe this all died out in the 00s.