This sort of ignorance is depressing to see. Dawkins needs to read about the philosophy of science. It's not as though the concept of science as a social construct is new or that it invalidates the findings of science.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1368259842222268421 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @gorskon
Wrong take, I think. His second sentence clarifies his meaning when he refers to “science’s truths”. I’m hearing him make an argument in support of objective reality and the discoveries we’ve made to understand that reality. Reality doesn’t get enough respect these days.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Facts are interpreted and framed with biases. I linked this already above but it’s a great example. Mating dynamics have been traditionally studied in a very biased manner. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/breaking-patrisharky-scientists-reexamine-gender-biases-shark-and-ray-mating-research … Also note all the work of
@sexinnature pushing against this massive oversight.1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Yes yes... People keep showing me examples of scientists rethinking something. That's great. That's how scientific discovery works. Let's talk about what they're seeking and sometimes discovering: truths about the natural world: atoms, elements, DNA, forces, equations...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Data/findings are never presented without framing. What we’re showing you is how the framing can have bias. Why are you dismissing that as if what we’re saying is irrelevant?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not dismissing framing, I'm dismissing the idea that this conversation is about framing. Dawkins was saying the universe has mechanisms (he called them truths) that exist independent of human observation (or framing). But people piled on him for saying something he didn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Except that he did.
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.