3 ms·

This sounds like "some science has said things I don't like, so you shouldn't refer to science as a point in an argument."

CoastalCoder 5y ago
I understood the author to be making a different point. I don't think she was saying that the conclusions of science-like processes are worthless. Just that they shouldn't be treated as inscrutable fact, for the reasons stated in the article.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Considering the entire content is aligned with a popular political ideology, it's clear that she's just using it as an argument for her ideology. She even implied that a straw-man claim she attributed to science was wrong for no other reason that that it was the year 2017. The very first sentence is critical of the fact that people are trying to understand something scientific!
- jpeloquin 5y ago
  Yeah. I think a key sentence is, "It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself." The process of science, that is, actually checking to see if one's beliefs are consistent with reality, is essential to distinguish truth from falsity. Scientific institutions can and have done terrible things though. TFA references scientific racism; the eugenics movement is related to it and still-existing scientific institutions had a significant role in promoting eugenics. See [0] for a self-critical overview. That's the "flaws of the institution" part. The "deification of science" part refers to how the effectiveness of science as a problem-solving tool gives a sort of halo effect (truthiness) to anything that adopts the semblance of science. That's kind of unavoidable; if something works, it gets status, and people will try to have some of that status rub off on them. I sort of disagree with the article's statement that "pseudoscience has always been a core feature of post-Enlightenment scientific knowledge and it remains that way because scientists refuse to integrate contemporary science, technology, and society studies research into university curricula." Scientists are critical of themselves and their fields and teach and discuss the material covered in TFA. The author was trained as a scientist, and their critiques mirror those expressed within science; again, see [0] for an example. If you do human subjects research as a professional scientist, you receive an intensive education in the ways science (and medicine) has failed to treat people as people, and accept strong limitations and oversight on your own research activities. I also sort of agree with the author though because the same level of education is not generally provided with regards to science's role in sexism or racism, at least not to the same rigor as human subjects research. [0] U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
Not at all. In fact, I think your comment supports the point made in the article. This is about how we think about science, and how we communicate between the scientific community and the public, and how we communicate between one another. Consider two possible perspectives, both "science-positive": 1. Scientific consensus is true. New findings add to our understanding of the topic and relates to the literature in that space. 2. Scientific consensus represents our best understanding of the evidence. New findings add to our understanding of the topic and relates to the literature in that space. We don't need to say that science is True to conduct meaningful research. In fact, doing so may hide paths of inquiry that question fundamental components of scientific literature, to give one example that comes to mind.
- lbriner 5y ago
  True! Also, not everything can be described as right or wrong, true or false. Does current flow positive to negative or the other way round? Well electroncs flow negative to positive but current flow can be however you define it. If we all decided to change current flow to a different direction and invert a load of maths, it wouldn't be wrong, just another way to be right. I think the missing piece is education of philosophy to people so that they understand how to evaluate, how to disagree, how to define terms, how to communicate what they know, what they think and what they don't know. Is a window still a window if the glass is painted black?
- _3u10 5y ago
  I think the scientific consensus is what the article is taking shots at. Rather than the scientific method. The scientific consensus is largely political whereas the scientific method produces many results which are politically inconvenient.

CoastalCoder 5y ago

I understood the author to be making a different point. I don't think she was saying that the conclusions of science-like processes are worthless. Just that they shouldn't be treated as inscrutable fact, for the reasons stated in the article.

exporectomy 5y ago
Considering the entire content is aligned with a popular political ideology, it's clear that she's just using it as an argument for her ideology. She even implied that a straw-man claim she attributed to science was wrong for no other reason that that it was the year 2017. The very first sentence is critical of the fact that people are trying to understand something scientific!
jpeloquin 5y ago
Yeah. I think a key sentence is, "It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself." The process of science, that is, actually checking to see if one's beliefs are consistent with reality, is essential to distinguish truth from falsity. Scientific institutions can and have done terrible things though. TFA references scientific racism; the eugenics movement is related to it and still-existing scientific institutions had a significant role in promoting eugenics. See [0] for a self-critical overview. That's the "flaws of the institution" part. The "deification of science" part refers to how the effectiveness of science as a problem-solving tool gives a sort of halo effect (truthiness) to anything that adopts the semblance of science. That's kind of unavoidable; if something works, it gets status, and people will try to have some of that status rub off on them. I sort of disagree with the article's statement that "pseudoscience has always been a core feature of post-Enlightenment scientific knowledge and it remains that way because scientists refuse to integrate contemporary science, technology, and society studies research into university curricula." Scientists are critical of themselves and their fields and teach and discuss the material covered in TFA. The author was trained as a scientist, and their critiques mirror those expressed within science; again, see [0] for an example. If you do human subjects research as a professional scientist, you receive an intensive education in the ways science (and medicine) has failed to treat people as people, and accept strong limitations and oversight on your own research activities. I also sort of agree with the author though because the same level of education is not generally provided with regards to science's role in sexism or racism, at least not to the same rigor as human subjects research. [0] U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/

DiggyJohnson 5y ago

Not at all. In fact, I think your comment supports the point made in the article. This is about how we think about science, and how we communicate between the scientific community and the public, and how we communicate between one another. Consider two possible perspectives, both "science-positive": 1. Scientific consensus is true. New findings add to our understanding of the topic and relates to the literature in that space. 2. Scientific consensus represents our best understanding of the evidence. New findings add to our understanding of the topic and relates to the literature in that space. We don't need to say that science is True to conduct meaningful research. In fact, doing so may hide paths of inquiry that question fundamental components of scientific literature, to give one example that comes to mind.

lbriner 5y ago
True! Also, not everything can be described as right or wrong, true or false. Does current flow positive to negative or the other way round? Well electroncs flow negative to positive but current flow can be however you define it. If we all decided to change current flow to a different direction and invert a load of maths, it wouldn't be wrong, just another way to be right. I think the missing piece is education of philosophy to people so that they understand how to evaluate, how to disagree, how to define terms, how to communicate what they know, what they think and what they don't know. Is a window still a window if the glass is painted black?
_3u10 5y ago
I think the scientific consensus is what the article is taking shots at. Rather than the scientific method. The scientific consensus is largely political whereas the scientific method produces many results which are politically inconvenient.