3 ms·
> Your scientific examples are relatively small debates occurring on the edge of knowledge One of my examples was physics. Physics most distinctly is not havin
by 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.
- TeaDrunk 6y agoThis is arguing semantics in the way that is being described as a humanities behavior in order to justify how science doesn't have the same or similar discussions.
- whatshisface 6y agoDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying "humanities bad science good rah rah rah," this very conversation is a humanities conversation, and I clearly like the humanities enough to participate in it. All I am saying is that the phenomenon of "ideological camps," where virtually everything said by one camp is incomprehensible to or considered loony by every other camp, exists in the humanities but not in science. String theory and loop quantum gravity are different theories, but they are not ideological camps, because the methods and conclusions of the researchers of one are all totally acceptable to researchers of the other. Likewise, believers in every proposed Alzheimers mechanism will agree with each other on the existence of proteins, prions, DNA, and metabolism.