3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoThere 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.