That would be fair and all, but your argument is precisely to put science in a pedestal of not being questioned unless there is evidence. But my point is that evidence pretty much does not matter in scientific debate, because the biggest arguments aren't about the data and evidence, but about entire worldviews or what Kuhn called paradig…
That would be fair and all, but your argument is precisely to put science in a pedestal of not being questioned unless there is evidence. But my point is that evidence pretty much does not matter in scientific debate, because the biggest arguments aren't about the data and evidence, but about entire worldviews or what Kuhn called paradigms. Science is not about evidence, and that kind of view is very, very naive. Again, the two books I suggested at the very least would make you rethink your assumptions. Philosophy and history of science is something very nuanced and far from what I or literally all my colleagues saw in college either in engineering or hard sciences.
This reminds me of Lord Kelvin. Anyone would be stupid to say Lord Kelvin, whose name is in my absolute favorite mathematical theorem, was anything but brilliant, but if it were up to him, X Rays and quantum mechanics would never have been accepted because they didn't fit his worldview. And, guess what, he openly disdained and questioned the scientists behind valid experiments regarding such topics. Scientists and the scientific establishment ARE NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.
Science is a tool, it can be used for good or evil. In the 19th century (not only) american biologists were adept to things like skull measurements and such to promote things like eugenics. School textbooks promoted such things, for example. In the 30s, the New Deal gave space to many of these people (look up for Rexford Tugwell for the greatest example). Scientists are normal humans with their own personal biases and their own little college professor class to protect, and like normal humans, they're gonna try to protect their own class.
That would be fair and all, but your argument is precisely to put science in a pedestal of not being questioned unless there is evidence. But my point is that evidence pretty much does not matter in scientific debate, because the biggest arguments aren't about the data and evidence, but about entire worldviews or what Kuhn called paradigms. Science is not about evidence, and that kind of view is very, very naive. Again, the two books I suggested at the very least would make you rethink your assumptions. Philosophy and history of science is something very nuanced and far from what I or literally all my colleagues saw in college either in engineering or hard sciences.
This reminds me of Lord Kelvin. Anyone would be stupid to say Lord Kelvin, whose name is in my absolute favorite mathematical theorem, was anything but brilliant, but if it were up to him, X Rays and quantum mechanics would never have been accepted because they didn't fit his worldview. And, guess what, he openly disdained and questioned the scientists behind valid experiments regarding such topics. Scientists and the scientific establishment ARE NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.
Science is a tool, it can be used for good or evil. In the 19th century (not only) american biologists were adept to things like skull measurements and such to promote things like eugenics. School textbooks promoted such things, for example. In the 30s, the New Deal gave space to many of these people (look up for Rexford Tugwell for the greatest example). Scientists are normal humans with their own personal biases and their own little college professor class to protect, and like normal humans, they're gonna try to protect their own class.
You misjudge what I said.