3 ms·

> Science is not a separate domain, but treads in politics and so on. How does science tread in politics? I'm actually honestly wondering.

by user202020 10y ago

pklausler 10y ago
It's not the fault of science that empirical reality tends to have a bias against conservativism (in its current American strain).
- astazangasta 10y ago
  This is the opposite of what I was saying; you're asserting the existence of an empirical reality that is removed from (superior to) political consideration, I'm insisting this is impossible.
  - pklausler 10y ago
    There's a great reason to trust conclusions based on sound experiments in empirical reality: they tend to work. I do enjoy seeing VLSI microprocessors, optical networks, and sophisticated software being used for discussions on whether or not science works.
    - astazangasta 10y ago
      This is a nonsense argument. I can fling rocks at you with great efficacy without any objective truth grounding my throws.
      - pklausler 10y ago
        F=ma
astazangasta 10y ago
Scientists make guns, rockets, energy technologies, robots, all of which have political and social consequence. Scientists produce models of human identity and behavior which have the same. See the other thread about machine learning and inequality, e.g.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Vice versa as well, as funding is always political either directly or indirectly via economy.
- user202020 10y ago
  I see this point, but I thought you meant that aspects of science mix with political thought. I can definitely see that science has consequences and influences on all kinds of things, including politics. In that case, every field is connected or related to another in some form or fashion.
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    I also mean that, science is deeply fucked by the political prejudices of its practitioners, and not in some trivial "all scientists are Democrats" sort of way. Science, no different than any other form of human knowledge, involves construction of narrative, and is subject to all of the same constraints that narrative prejudice yields. What you study and the methods you use are an obvious place we might find this problem.
    - user202020 10y ago
      I wouldn't say it's as messed up as that. You make it sound as thought scientific institutions suffer from systemic corruption. Yes, narrative is involved, but humans are storytellers. I don't think science is limited or hindered by the way people process information.
  - bloaf 10y ago
    There is a distinction between "science: the game as she is played" and "science: the epistemic method." The former certainly has two-way interactions with politics, but the latter does not.

> Science is not a separate domain, but treads in politics and so on. How does science tread in politics? I'm actually honestly wondering.

pklausler 10y ago

It's not the fault of science that empirical reality tends to have a bias against conservativism (in its current American strain).

astazangasta 10y ago
This is the opposite of what I was saying; you're asserting the existence of an empirical reality that is removed from (superior to) political consideration, I'm insisting this is impossible.
- pklausler 10y ago
  There's a great reason to trust conclusions based on sound experiments in empirical reality: they tend to work. I do enjoy seeing VLSI microprocessors, optical networks, and sophisticated software being used for discussions on whether or not science works.
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    This is a nonsense argument. I can fling rocks at you with great efficacy without any objective truth grounding my throws.
    - pklausler 10y ago
      F=ma

astazangasta 10y ago

Scientists make guns, rockets, energy technologies, robots, all of which have political and social consequence. Scientists produce models of human identity and behavior which have the same. See the other thread about machine learning and inequality, e.g.

AstralStorm 10y ago
Vice versa as well, as funding is always political either directly or indirectly via economy.
user202020 10y ago
I see this point, but I thought you meant that aspects of science mix with political thought. I can definitely see that science has consequences and influences on all kinds of things, including politics. In that case, every field is connected or related to another in some form or fashion.
- astazangasta 10y ago
  I also mean that, science is deeply fucked by the political prejudices of its practitioners, and not in some trivial "all scientists are Democrats" sort of way. Science, no different than any other form of human knowledge, involves construction of narrative, and is subject to all of the same constraints that narrative prejudice yields. What you study and the methods you use are an obvious place we might find this problem.
  - user202020 10y ago
    I wouldn't say it's as messed up as that. You make it sound as thought scientific institutions suffer from systemic corruption. Yes, narrative is involved, but humans are storytellers. I don't think science is limited or hindered by the way people process information.
- bloaf 10y ago
  There is a distinction between "science: the game as she is played" and "science: the epistemic method." The former certainly has two-way interactions with politics, but the latter does not.