Alex WellersteinVerified account

She also has science degrees, but that is less relevant than people seem to think (a degree in STEM does not by itself tell one how science works historically or across disciplines). So attacks against her expertise are at best mislaid, at worst seem heavily tinged with sexism.

That aside: When Audra says that science has always been political, she is not saying that science is always "tainted" by politics, or that it is always *partisan*. She is saying that claims to nature have always been joined with claims to power of some sort.

This is precisely the claim in question- whether there is any significance to "Science is political" or just an extension of deconstruction philosophy and that cannot also be attached to any aspect of life. If nothing is being said, then we can move on.

The problem is no separation is made (or perhaps even believed in) between the human institution of science, and the process that does give it superior epistemic status and disproportionate weight in obtaining objective knowledge.

To rephrase this, what you're really asking is, "is science special? does it actually get objective knowledge (unlike everything else in the human world)?" which is a related but somewhat different question.

And a question that there are many different philosophical and historical takes on (there is no single consensus view in the communities that study this specific question seriously).

Personally, I think there is a big difference between saying "science gets us to objective truth," and saying "science is the most reliable method we have for generating knowledge about the natural world."

The first position is not compatible with a subtle idea of the interconnections between science and the rest of human activity. The second however is very compatible, and does not denigrate scientific knowledge much (it keeps it as a form of human knowledge, but a reliable one).