There seems to be a lot confusion in the replies here regarding what Audra is saying — which is an entirely uncontroversial statement within the academic disciplines that study how science works now and in the past (e.g., the History, Anthropology, & Sociology of Science).https://twitter.com/ColdWarScience/status/1017211382176059392 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @wellerstein
I always liked John Casti's three-tiered definition of "science". Except for the first definition, all the other definitions are 'political' in some sense. People seem to be willfully or otherwise interpreting the statement as pushing some kind of relativist postmodernist agendapic.twitter.com/JHsDJrAS2R
3 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @curiouswavefn @wellerstein
Even facts and theories have political components
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @moritherapy @wellerstein
Yes, but one would assume (especially if you’re a Platonist) that while one might tread a particular politically-influenced path to a fact like matter-energy equivalence, the fact was always there to begin with.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @curiouswavefn @moritherapy
I draw a distinction between "mass-energy equivalence, the concept described by physicists" and "the way nature works." Our concepts can very accurately describe nature, but they are not the same thing as it. When we speak of "facts" we still speak of concepts.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The amount of human work it takes to say, "this concept is actually an accurate description of nature" is immense and frequently on-going. The concepts do not sustain themselves. (Nature, of course, does. But our awareness is never perfect, and usually incomplete.)
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.