You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
No, it's that some people realize that Science is a method of inquiry whose entire purpose is to ascertain properties of the world independent of the biases (political or otherwise) of the people doing the science.https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1017770859287728128 …
That is not in any way incompatible with what I've written. I am curious that you think it is, though. The scientists doing the inquiry still work in the same context as the rest of the world, and — whether they like it or not — that makes the whole thing part of that world.
Fields like quantum mechanics and cosmology — to just use your example — are hardly exempt from this. Scratch only a little bit into their history, and you'll find people pursuing theories for political reasons (sometimes explicitly as political metaphors, such as Bohm's work),
and you'll find people who try to oppose theories they don't like (including but not limited to scientists) for political reasons. *By itself* this should tell you there is some political import are the core of the work.
Now, you can say, "well, everyone who opposes a theory because it interferes with their politics is wrong." I'm fine with that! But you're really just saying: "science, thus, should call the shots, if it comes into conflict with power/ideology/whatever."
Which is an EXTRAORDINARILY political statement! (Which, again, is FINE! Just don't pretend it's NOT one!)
Wow dude. You sure do have a way of telling other people what is they're saying.
Perhaps you're misreading my intention (in the latter two Tweets, when I say "you," I mean an abstract "you." I perhaps could have written "one"). In any case, I am not trying to mischaracterize, only make the position I'm stating more clear.
This shows the differences in how people approach things. To some a hammer (i.e., "science") is a tool you can use to drive a nail. To others the hammer can be examined and were it was made, what it is made of, etc. says a lot about that tool's place in the world.
Thus, even when people (i.e., tool users) can acknowledge the hammer is an artifact that reflects who made it, how, and why, they still conceptualize the hammer based upon it's fundamental purpose of driving the nail. The context around it is secondary.
Or at least that's how I've always observed this debate.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
