3 ms·

I find it really naive to treat science like some kind of objective methodology that can output unbiased data. Its complete fantasy. "Science" is much more of

I find it really naive to treat science like some kind of objective methodology that can output unbiased data. Its complete fantasy. "Science" is much more of a set of institutions and social regard for those institutions than an objective methodology. We often just want to throw money and scientists at an issue, and get out good "science" but thats like managers hiring 50% more programmers for 50% better/more code, we know the details are what matters. At the end of the day, "science" in the real world is a lot of professor vying for tenure, caught in publish or perish, funding coming from self-preserving institutions, and a bunch of overworked grad students. Its a lot of companies making a buck, too. Everything is political! Everything. If you see something like science, religion, art, anything as apolitical, that probably means its just reinforcing prevailing politics. Check out Anarchistic Epistemology if this idea is of any interest.

rcoveson 6y ago
> Everything is political! Everything. I think what you might be saying is something like, "politics is a fundamental part of human behavior, so all things human must at least be scrutinized through a political lens". Which is probably true. But I can also point out that gut flora are part of being human, so human interaction must be at least glanced at through a gastrointestinal lens. And to some extent, that's true as well; those microbes do influence behavior in surprising ways. Even a though the political lens has non-zero utility in practically any case, it's still not sufficient to explain the physics of our world or even all of human behavior. There's a little red in any real-world colored object, but everything is not red.
orwin 6y ago
I don't think math is political. A scientific theory could be considered political only if you think Popper's definition is fundamentally flawed. I don't think his definition is wrong though and i have yet to see someone arguing over the basics since the 80s (nowadays its more bayesians vs frequentists). > I find it really naive to treat science like some kind of objective methodology that can output unbiased data. Its complete fantasy. No bayesian scientific will treat science like this. > "Science" is much more of a set of institutions and social regard for those institutions than an objective methodology Wrong, there is methodology. Scientific consensus is still the best approximation of the reality we have. It might be wrong, but it is wrong for the right reasons. > We often just want to throw money and scientists at an issue, and get out good "science" but thats like managers hiring 50% more programmers for 50% better/more code, we know the details are what matters. Pad argument, this is not comparable. > At the end of the day, "science" in the real world is a lot of professor vying for tenure, caught in publish or perish, funding coming from self-preserving institutions, and a bunch of overworked grad students. Its a lot of companies making a buck, too. Yes, good point. > Everything is political! Everything. If you see something like science, religion, art, anything as apolitical, that probably means its just reinforcing prevailing politics. I see math as apolitical. Tell me how i'm reinforcing capitalism and liberalism. If you can't, this argument is invalid. > Check out Anarchistic Epistemology if this idea is of any interest. Ok, now i see, why you're against the scientific method. Popper's falsification have been largely improved by epistemologist thanks or Feyerabend's critics, and he is right about the "consistency" criterion that was dumped in all fields except medecine and social science. However this epistemologic theory is old and its argument were already based on old discoveries (galileo, newton) or misrepresentation of newer ones (i think a dozen papers were written against his vision of Einstein, and i find his critics on Feynman really undeserved). If you have knowledge of any epistemologic book[0] on this theory updated with new knowledge i'd like to read it. [0] Or any living philosopher since nowadays its more about short papers than books in the philosophical field.
Discombulator 6y ago
>Everything is political! Everything. If you see something like science, religion, art, anything as apolitical, that probably means its just reinforcing prevailing politics. Let's assume that everything is political. We could certainly argue that every concept and every thing created by human is in some way political. But then what? If everything is, what does it mean for a thing to be "political"? That concept has simply become empty and useless.

rcoveson 6y ago

> Everything is political! Everything. I think what you might be saying is something like, "politics is a fundamental part of human behavior, so all things human must at least be scrutinized through a political lens". Which is probably true. But I can also point out that gut flora are part of being human, so human interaction must be at least glanced at through a gastrointestinal lens. And to some extent, that's true as well; those microbes do influence behavior in surprising ways. Even a though the political lens has non-zero utility in practically any case, it's still not sufficient to explain the physics of our world or even all of human behavior. There's a little red in any real-world colored object, but everything is not red.

orwin 6y ago

I don't think math is political. A scientific theory could be considered political only if you think Popper's definition is fundamentally flawed. I don't think his definition is wrong though and i have yet to see someone arguing over the basics since the 80s (nowadays its more bayesians vs frequentists). > I find it really naive to treat science like some kind of objective methodology that can output unbiased data. Its complete fantasy. No bayesian scientific will treat science like this. > "Science" is much more of a set of institutions and social regard for those institutions than an objective methodology Wrong, there is methodology. Scientific consensus is still the best approximation of the reality we have. It might be wrong, but it is wrong for the right reasons. > We often just want to throw money and scientists at an issue, and get out good "science" but thats like managers hiring 50% more programmers for 50% better/more code, we know the details are what matters. Pad argument, this is not comparable. > At the end of the day, "science" in the real world is a lot of professor vying for tenure, caught in publish or perish, funding coming from self-preserving institutions, and a bunch of overworked grad students. Its a lot of companies making a buck, too. Yes, good point. > Everything is political! Everything. If you see something like science, religion, art, anything as apolitical, that probably means its just reinforcing prevailing politics. I see math as apolitical. Tell me how i'm reinforcing capitalism and liberalism. If you can't, this argument is invalid. > Check out Anarchistic Epistemology if this idea is of any interest. Ok, now i see, why you're against the scientific method. Popper's falsification have been largely improved by epistemologist thanks or Feyerabend's critics, and he is right about the "consistency" criterion that was dumped in all fields except medecine and social science. However this epistemologic theory is old and its argument were already based on old discoveries (galileo, newton) or misrepresentation of newer ones (i think a dozen papers were written against his vision of Einstein, and i find his critics on Feynman really undeserved). If you have knowledge of any epistemologic book[0] on this theory updated with new knowledge i'd like to read it. [0] Or any living philosopher since nowadays its more about short papers than books in the philosophical field.

Discombulator 6y ago

>Everything is political! Everything. If you see something like science, religion, art, anything as apolitical, that probably means its just reinforcing prevailing politics. Let's assume that everything is political. We could certainly argue that every concept and every thing created by human is in some way political. But then what? If everything is, what does it mean for a thing to be "political"? That concept has simply become empty and useless.