@MC_Maurer @RaccoonSkeptic right, but you said science "strives for objectivity," but science doest "strive" for anything, it's-
-
-
Replying to @delmoi @HPluckrose and
simply a method, one that we happen to know *produces* highly objective facts over time.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @delmoi @RaccoonSkeptic
A method, the aim of which is to discover consistent truths. If you don't like 'strives' & 'objectivity'. It works.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @RaccoonSkeptic
well again, it's not the aim "of science" but the aim of the people doing it. But their aim might be something-
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @delmoi @RaccoonSkeptic
That's not necessarily true. Its the purpose of the method but people have used it for all sorts of personal goals.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @RaccoonSkeptic
right exactly, the point is that "science" doest have goals, objectives. It's a method. Like using algebra.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @delmoi @RaccoonSkeptic
It has a purpose.It comes from the verb 'to know as a fact'. This seems like semantic quibbling to me.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @RaccoonSkeptic
well, the semantics matter if you want to make a philosophical argument about what science is and isn't.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @delmoi
If you want to do philosophy around science or identity politics, or ethics or whatever, fine. Just let ppl focus on science itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
except what I just said was that you can use science tosolve social justice problems,therefore scientists should talk about them
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You can say it all you like but until there is something objectively true about human concepts of justice, I don't see how.
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.