3 ms·
I'm talking about the meta-level above what science is. There is no dispute that science is the scientific method, the rationalist process of inferring knowledg
by DC-3 6y ago
I'm talking about the meta-level above what science is. There is no dispute that science is the scientific method, the rationalist process of inferring knowledge from formalised analysis of empirical evidence. I'm talking about the faith that society vests in science to explain things - to obtain knowledge - when weighed against other ways in which knowledge and an understanding of the world may be obtained.
Although he is far more sympathetic to the anti-rationalist case than I am, this [1] video by Philosophy Tube touches on some of these ideas (and he is much better read on this stuff than I am). Although he makes a quip against post-modernism about 6 minutes in, it is my understanding that in broad strokes, the analysis he presents is in the post-modern tradition.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE
- TeaDrunk 6y agoIsn't this itself local knowledge being spread and not science? Why argue against it with it? Thus my confusion.
- DC-3 6y agoIt's very hard to prove with evidence the perversion of an ideology. I can only cite disparate evidence. I think once you become aware of these ideas you start seeing their influence though.
- apocalypstyx 6y agoIdeology is a lens: every one we try renders a different image, but without one, we are blind. The gravitational pull of one is always seen through the perspective of another.
- 205guy 6y agoYou have been adroitly played by TeaDrunk using your own logic against you. To use words of your own choosing: are you starting to see the influence of your own perverted ideology?
- DC-3 6y agoI meant pervasion. It was a typo. I think it could be demonstrated empirically that certain anti-rationalist attitudes have increased in recent years, especially on the left. Since we're not doing science here I don't see why I need to provide ultra-rigorous evidence. Is that itself anti-rationalist? I don't think so - I'm not trying to influence government policy or get a PhD - some discussion contexts call for a larger burden of evidence than others.