Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ArchimedesLightning wrote

Fuck this shit. Anyone that says that the scientific method is somehow related to some sort of "ideal" and not reality, which is its literal definition is at best miss informed. Done with talking to idiots that think they know what science is.

−5

ziq wrote (edited )

Anarchist:

<1000s of words critiquing the scientific method and its proclivity for corruption by authority>

Scientist:

Fuck this shit. Done with talking to (ableist slur) that think they know what science is.

The scientific / christian method in all its glory. Don't question science, science is perfect, incapable of corruption or weakness. People who question it are simply too feeble to understand it.

7

Spring wrote

I don't think that's what Gelderloos is saying. The argument is that either the scientific method is empirical, deals with reality (including social realities such as institutional blindspots) and therefore fallible. Or none of science's failings are "real science", they could all be solved with more science and that is all that is needed to solve them. But this is a nonsense argument, if no imperfections belong to science and none of the imperfect realities belong to science, then science must be unreal, unable to affect reality in any way, at which point - isn't it completely useless?

3