Stop Equating Science With Truth

klnOmega

Banned
Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
9,540
Reaction score
0
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...obvious_example_of_how_science_is_flawed.html

Stop Equating “Science” With Truth
Evolutionary psychology is just the most obvious example of science’s flaws.

It's 2017,and people are still debating whether or not women are intellectually inferior to men, and whether we are entitled to a workplace that isn’t toxic to people simply based on their gender and sex. The Google employee memo about the apparent harms of diversity policies in Silicon Valley is both a shocking news story for the general public and for many women and gender minorities—especially of color—working in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine, a banal sign of normalcy.


At least science is helping us make progress, right? Science is sold to us as an almost holy, objective pursuit: a pure endeavor, a way of pursuing truth and only truth. As a high school senior planning to study physics and astronomy in college, I was thoroughly convinced that solving quantum gravity would trickle down to improved human relations. Of course, I was adorably naïve about both the difficulty that quantum gravity presented us (we’ve made little progress in the 18 years since I started university) and about the relationship between science and humanity’s various imperfections.

My education as a scientist did little to disabuse me of this simple view of science as a great unifier, as an objective means of distilling information. When skeptical members of my family argued that physics was dangerous because of nuclear weapons, I pointed out that it wasn’t science that was the problem but rather how people used it. But nowhere is it more evident that this perspective is flawed than when we consider the uses and abuses of evolutionary biology and its sibling, evolutionary psychology.

It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself. For example: It was argued to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains. The well-known scientist who made this comment to me is both a woman and someone who knows quite well that “peer-reviewed” and “correct” are not interchangeable terms. This brings us to the question that many have grappled with this week. It's 2017, and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a man’s intellect above a woman’s.

Guys, it's 2017why are you still equating science and truth? Science is done by white men to uphold the patriarchy. Peer-review is useless because its just more white men circle jerking each other. Stop listening to science you fucking bigots.


EDIT: Notice how all the posters below just make offhanded comments about me? That's called shit posting. Don't be a shit poster. Comment on the article instead :^)
 
Last edited:
44f05598f0484b518c3551fb49ae465e--nacho-libre-movie-tv.jpg
 
Climate change is basically completely divorced from science now. Its 90% political. The science in the field is as rigorous as Gender science at this point.

Science isn't about democratic consensus. Most scientists who weigh in on the issue are no more informed on it than any of us, and are probably less informed than Cruz.

We can have money for real science again now that we don't waste it all on climate "scientists".

We should build some particle accelerators too.

<puh-lease75>
 
How has this dude made it this long without getting banned?
 
<puh-lease75>

While I do appreciate you taking the time to dive through my post history, you'll notice that none of those attacks the philosophy of science. Arguing with someones findings is scientific. But that's not what this author is doing. This author is arguing that because the social implications of a scientific finding conflict with their worldview, people should ignore that science. She is saying that the science is correct, but is problematic and should be ignored. I'm arguing that someone's science is wrong, which is exactly how science is done. Its a shame you didn't learn more about this in grade school.
 
While I do appreciate you taking the time to dive through my post history, you'll notice that none of those attacks the philosophy of science. Arguing with someones findings is scientific. But that's not what this author is doing. This author is arguing that because the social implications of a scientific finding conflict with their worldview, people should ignore that science. She is saying that the science is correct, but is problematic and should be ignored. I'm arguing that someone's science is wrong, which is exactly how science is done. Its a shame you didn't learn more about this in grade school.

> "Climate science is all political reeeeee!!!!"

>"I argue their findings!"

<puh-lease75>
 
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...obvious_example_of_how_science_is_flawed.html



Guys, it's 2017why are you still equating science and truth? Science is done by white men to uphold the patriarchy. Peer-review is useless because its just more white men circle jerking each other. Stop listening to science you fucking bigots.


EDIT: Notice how all the posters below just make offhanded comments about me? That's called shit posting. Don't be a shit poster. Comment on the article instead :^)


Psychology is usually seen as pseudoscience by real scientists. It's the lowest form of science.

 
Science has a self correcting mechanism, which is the reason it has epistemological privilege.
No other means of learning the truth about things is as rigorous.
 
Someone doesn't understand how the scientific method works.
 
Science has a self correcting mechanism, which is the reason it has epistemological privilege.
No other means of learning the truth about things is as rigorous.

The article disagrees with you.

Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting. In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.
 

Then you would know that the scientific consensus isn't the truth, it is best the interpretation of the current data among the experts of the field. The consensus interpretation can and will change as new data is presented.
 
Then you would know that the scientific consensus isn't the truth, it is best the interpretation of the current data among the experts of the field. The consensus interpretation can and will change as new data is presented.

I believe @Falsedawn quoted me above saying that very same thing...and used it to argue that I am anti-science.
 
Back
Top