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 …
At some point, a given concept might become so useful, so indispensable, that it becomes silly to imagine that it's going to be overthrown. It becomes part of the bedrock of so many other ideas. Agreed 100%. But that usefulness — that validation — is like a constant prodding.
-
-
That prodding is still a form of human intervention. It's what sustains the concept. So you never really take the "people" out of the equation. And if you can't take them out, you can't take the other parts that come with them, either.
-
Which is just to say: the "facts" don't sit in some separate category from the rest of the work of science. They're part of it. I think notions that try to separate the "facts" from the rest of it do injustice to the amount of work involved in sustaining "facts."
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.