4 ms·
That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the state o
by mdifrgechd 6y ago
That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the state of the art are involved, there are debates about everything from the best approach to the interpretation of results. Science as consensus is an oversimplification used by people who don't want to hear other opinions.
- whatshisface 6y agoThe debate only happens over a tiny fraction of all claims, and reasonable people don't believe that fraction until it joins the high-confidence whole. The phenomenon of disjoint ideologies does not exist in science. In the humanities, you have things like how Analytic philosophers will reject everything ever written by a Continental philosopher. In contrast, while there is such a thing as an analytic chemist there is no such thing as a Continental chemist. ;)
- hummmmm 6y agoIt sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of hard-sciences, logocentric tunnel vision. In humanities, 99% of all claims one makes will be actively contemplated, to see if the argument holds. Even in cases where the truth seems totally certain, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "we should remain skeptical, critical, and open-minded about unverified truth claims" than "yep, that thing that seems certainly, definitely true is completely true."
- whatshisface 6y agoI'm aware that reasonable humanities people don't really believe anything, but it cannot be denied that ideological adherents exist. In fact, there are a lot of them and they write a lot. A great deal of work happens within ideological camps (like "marxism" or "analytic philosophy") which are not valued at all to people outside of them. Within the camp, arguments are compared, but outside of it they are seen as having no merit. Using my example again, most analytic philosophers would find Foucault's writings totally uncompelling, to the point of seeing them as epistemically equivalent to blank paper. The only place you see that in science is with the so-called "crackpots," but they are actually wrong.
- TeaDrunk 6y agoI don't see this as that different compared to multiple opinions of how alzhimers functions or the multiple competing theories of many many fields of physics. There are even whole studies of mathematics that are derided by other mathematicians as illegitimate.
- whatshisface 6y agoYour scientific examples are relatively small debates occurring on the edge of knowledge. All biologists agree on the citric acid cycle and thousands of other known biological mechanisms. All physicists agree on the standard model and general relativity, along with classical mechanics, thermodynamics, etcetera. Your math example is closer to the humanities situation, but because choice of axioms is a philosophical question, it is actually a part of the humanities situation. Two chemists arguing over a reaction mechanism are about as different as two Trotskyists arguing over Trotsky. The difference between Friedmanites and Trotskyists, on the other hand, has absolutely no analogue in science, because it is far larger.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago> Your scientific examples are relatively small debates occurring on the edge of knowledge One of my examples was physics. Physics most distinctly is not having small debates on some edge of knowledge. This is similar for alzheimer's research. Fundamental functionings that the field rely on are still under deabte.
- whatshisface 6y agoDon't let the label "fundamental" mislead you - String theory has no impact on our understanding of classical mechanics, because we already know classical mechanics. It is actually classical mechanics that influences string theory, because the microscopic theories have to conform to what is already known about the macroscopic world. The fundamental is not the foundational.