5 ms·

You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models a

You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.

highfiveui 9y ago
Is science not about finding the truth above all else?
- foolrush 9y ago
  The search for truth is fundamentally epistemological. There is a fascinating dive into just what science is, when it began, etc. One might disagree with his language, but this post is remarkably insightful to begin such a dive: http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steven-pinker-is-a-total-ignoramus-who http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steve...
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  Mm .... Maybe? Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has the most relevant writing on this.
Jabanga 9y ago
That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368
- foolrush 9y ago
  Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).
    - foolrush 9y ago
      Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology? No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological. In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think. What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions. If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        Notice how you're not actually agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion. You're simple trying to justify the postmodernist take on truth.
        foolrush 9y ago
        You haven't read a single text that falls under the banner of Postmodern. Please stop using the term. As the other commenter has noted, you need to historcise. Continental philosophers didn't just plop onto the scene buoyed by multimillion dollar marketing budgets; the epistemology issues they raised are real. Your ridiculous claims of Marxist thought, Feminist thought, etc. betray your ignorance. So yes, I disagree with every single one of your assertions, but RTFM isn't applicable here, so I avoided stating it outright. Your valuing and clinging of random opinion over informed knowledge is at least as telling as your initial professions. You may have been able to fake it around your equally uniformed peers. Replace the term "Feminist" with "A person believing in equal rights for women" and your deeply seated, neurologically stuck repetition of misogynist statements rings clear across all communications.

highfiveui 9y ago

Is science not about finding the truth above all else?

foolrush 9y ago
The search for truth is fundamentally epistemological. There is a fascinating dive into just what science is, when it began, etc. One might disagree with his language, but this post is remarkably insightful to begin such a dive: http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steven-pinker-is-a-total-ignoramus-who http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steve...
kthejoker2 9y ago
Mm .... Maybe? Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has the most relevant writing on this.

Jabanga 9y ago

That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368

foolrush 9y ago
Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).
  - foolrush 9y ago
    Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology? No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological. In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think. What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions. If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      Notice how you're not actually agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion. You're simple trying to justify the postmodernist take on truth.
      - foolrush 9y ago
        You haven't read a single text that falls under the banner of Postmodern. Please stop using the term. As the other commenter has noted, you need to historcise. Continental philosophers didn't just plop onto the scene buoyed by multimillion dollar marketing budgets; the epistemology issues they raised are real. Your ridiculous claims of Marxist thought, Feminist thought, etc. betray your ignorance. So yes, I disagree with every single one of your assertions, but RTFM isn't applicable here, so I avoided stating it outright. Your valuing and clinging of random opinion over informed knowledge is at least as telling as your initial professions. You may have been able to fake it around your equally uniformed peers. Replace the term "Feminist" with "A person believing in equal rights for women" and your deeply seated, neurologically stuck repetition of misogynist statements rings clear across all communications.