This instance isn’t saying all science is bad, only that a particular scientific belief was incorrect, harmful, and based heavily on cultural bias. It’s always science that ultimately destroys that type of “science.” Science is fundamentally a process of tearing down old beliefs and replacing them with better ones.
Good scientists won’t hesitate to confirm that science can cause great harm. That doesn’t mean science isn’t the best method for finding truth about material reality, but like everything good, it is powerful and dangerous.
If it’s not the result of the scientific method, including being independently proven through peer review/consensus, then it’s not science and it shouldn’t be called science even with scare quotes.
These harmful ideas are often found through scientific experiments and are often independently corroborated through peer review, becoming the consensus. Unfortunately, those peers might have the same blindspots as you, and might not notice the errors you didn’t see because they have the same perspective. This is why diversity in science is so important. Thousands of people with similar perspectives aren’t as helpful as hundreds of people with wildly different perspectives.
Science isn’t as clean or objective as we’d like it to be. Race science was considered a valid science when the entire scientific community consisted of rich white supremacists. The consensus view recognizes their theories as “science” now, but their theories were the actual science of their day. Peer review isn’t magic. There are always limitations.
You shouldn’t have to also take statistics to know what a statistically significant sample set is when determining whether or not something has been sufficiently peer-reviewed, but maybe for you specifically, it would be useful 🤷♂️
I actually had to go and reread the post because I didn’t get a scare quote vibe from it and had to double check what part you were referencing. My interpretation of that was more critiquing/mocking views that treat science as a monolith, especially Established Science™. Of course, there are areas of science that are considered to be “settled matters” (or at least, more settled than most), but it’s more productive to think of science as an ongoing process rather than an established body of knowledge. Like, I think the useful part is the way we consider what we consider to be established knowledge and learn from that. This is especially true in fields where new technology can place established knowledge in a new light.
I think that Twitter OP was more poking at people who use science in their appeal to authority arguments. Often what these people call science, I would call Scientism. Now that I reread it though, I can see the possible scare quote vibes
i agree with the overall sentiment here but i cannot in good conscience upvote any post that puts the word science in scare quotes.
This instance isn’t saying all science is bad, only that a particular scientific belief was incorrect, harmful, and based heavily on cultural bias. It’s always science that ultimately destroys that type of “science.” Science is fundamentally a process of tearing down old beliefs and replacing them with better ones.
Good scientists won’t hesitate to confirm that science can cause great harm. That doesn’t mean science isn’t the best method for finding truth about material reality, but like everything good, it is powerful and dangerous.
If it’s not the result of the scientific method, including being independently proven through peer review/consensus, then it’s not science and it shouldn’t be called science even with scare quotes.
These harmful ideas are often found through scientific experiments and are often independently corroborated through peer review, becoming the consensus. Unfortunately, those peers might have the same blindspots as you, and might not notice the errors you didn’t see because they have the same perspective. This is why diversity in science is so important. Thousands of people with similar perspectives aren’t as helpful as hundreds of people with wildly different perspectives.
Science isn’t as clean or objective as we’d like it to be. Race science was considered a valid science when the entire scientific community consisted of rich white supremacists. The consensus view recognizes their theories as “science” now, but their theories were the actual science of their day. Peer review isn’t magic. There are always limitations.
You shouldn’t have to also take statistics to know what a statistically significant sample set is when determining whether or not something has been sufficiently peer-reviewed, but maybe for you specifically, it would be useful 🤷♂️
I hope for humanity’s sake you don’t actually work in any scientific field. We need fewer embodiments of the Dunning–Kruger effect, not more.
Paging Dr. Irony, will Dr. Irony please come to the comment section?
🤣
deleted by creator
I actually had to go and reread the post because I didn’t get a scare quote vibe from it and had to double check what part you were referencing. My interpretation of that was more critiquing/mocking views that treat science as a monolith, especially Established Science™. Of course, there are areas of science that are considered to be “settled matters” (or at least, more settled than most), but it’s more productive to think of science as an ongoing process rather than an established body of knowledge. Like, I think the useful part is the way we consider what we consider to be established knowledge and learn from that. This is especially true in fields where new technology can place established knowledge in a new light.
I think that Twitter OP was more poking at people who use science in their appeal to authority arguments. Often what these people call science, I would call Scientism. Now that I reread it though, I can see the possible scare quote vibes