“Science is not a social construct.” I’ve heard six year-olds refer to the actual entities — black holes and dinosaurs and x-rays and such — as “science,” but by ten years of age people tend to distinguish between the object of study and the method used to study it.
-
-
Show this thread
-
A number of the Dawkins fans in the replies seem to think this is a non-issue or a cheap shot. It’s actually what I work on. Here’s a short explanation of why the socially constructed nature of science matters. No postmodernism. I promise.http://ctbergstrom.com/understanding-science.html …
Show this thread -
Without comment, a bit of background.https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1340612900231077888 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Which is why it is important to distinguish advocates and investigators.
- Show replies
-
-
-
He’s also technically incorrect on some points. For example, dinosaur truths were not truths before dinosaurs evolved. And so on...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not really his brand though
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Absolutely. Sure, we really hope to get at these transcendent truths or whatever. But saying we can avoid epistemic baggage, especially regarding the sociology of science and the society it is embedded into, is conveniently forgetting our humanity...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why read books when you can traffic in rape apologia and be applauded by the culture as a brave heterodox.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wasn’t aware that science was attempting to find the truth about the real world. Scientists are, which isn’t the same thing.
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.