This is just a confusion in terms: "Science" = process by which humans examine the universe "Facts" = truths about the universe that cannot be altered Science is by definition constructed. Facts are nothttps://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1368259842222268421 …
-
-
Many scientific disciplines were created by charlatans and used for purposes that we would now describe as pseudoscientific. In the 1800s, some pseudoscientific areas were more on the ball than "traditional" medicine
Show this thread -
And large parts of what we now mark as the imprimatur of "science" - white coats, labs, PhDs - are more historical than they are an essential part of the process
Show this thread -
Then we have the areas that use what we'd usually consider as the "scientific method" - sociology, anthropology - but lack the certainty that physics gives us. They don't fit the classical mold of "science", but they do still do things scientifically
Show this thread -
Anyway, the second you actually start to try and define the rules that govern why some things are considered science and others are not, you realize that a lot of it is pretty arbitrary
Show this thread -
When Dawkins says that "science" is not socially constructed, what he means is that there are objectively true facts and that these are immutable, but the reality is that our system for discovering those facts cannot ever be without some construction
Show this thread -
Yes, he partially clarified this, but the important point is not about whether there is or isn't an objective reality, but whether our system for examining that reality is objective
Show this thread
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.