Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative?

Now Im totally off the melon truck Why "paradigm" and what the hell is he talking about?

forensics should never be litigation driven and in criminalistics, such an approach can be a felony. In civul cases , unfortunately, the lawyers run the show and they have no concern about truth or scientific proinciples. They just want thweir experts to support their cases. Many lawyers will retain a bunch of experts and weed them out till they are satisfied with ones opinion.

I think you are trying to confuse the subject by radiating out from a common center and this entire conversation is generating a heavy "FOG FACTOR"

A good statement of the contrast between the ideal and the real.
Sometimes they are congruent, sometimes not.

all human activiyies are so, science is only unique here because many fear it.

To the contrary, this issue is really simple. Culture, politics, and financial profit may determine which questions scientists want to investigate, and are paid to investigate. But the facts determined in their investigations are value-free and culture-independent, or else they wouldn't be scientific facts. The philosophers and sociologists you refer to are bullshitting their audience, perhaps in an effort to project profundity. That's how simple this is.

I must say, Thomas: that was profound.

Fair enough. Scientists indeed adopt paradigms inorder to conduct research, but, is the knowledge generated by these paradigms necessarily relative? Empirical science has established itself as a reliable and valid mechanism for naturalistic inquiry. However, I don't think the justification for the results generated by the empirical sciences stand on who adopts that methodology. It has to do with the validity of the methodology itself. Science is a reliable and objective knowledge producing mechanism precisely because it has demonstrated quite well over time to do exactly just that.

I am only giving illustrations of what sociologists have been saying about science in recent decades. Personally, I feel that much of what they say is absurd. (For example, the sociologist who believes Issac Newton's approach to nature is sexist and should be called a rape manual.)

Nevertheless this has been a trend in the philosophy and sociology of science. I thought it would be fun to study some of the excesses of this trend. By the way, Thomas, sociobiology also reflects the excesses of this trend.

Farmerman: the intelligent design proponents have stated that their paradigm will someday replace the Darwinian paradigm. Paradigm refers to a "dominant framework" that directs how research is done in a scientific specialty. I do not believe that ALL science is done that way. There are those who do believe that all science is paradigm-driven. The danger in this way of thinking is that it devalues science and leads to anti-science.

To the contrary. Nobody ever accused E. O. Wilson of an excess of cultural relativism. The accusation against him was always that he ignored the allegedly-profound cultural differences between human societies and ant heaps.

I apologize for my fogginess. I generally do not know what direction I am going when I start a thread.

Social scientists have envied natural science for a long time. Sociobiology is another attempt to adopt the methodology of natural science for the study of human society. This is misguided (in my opinion).

Although I disagree, at least in the case of Wilson (1975), that's not my point here. My point is that even if you're right and sociobiologists are wrong, they are making the opposite mistake to the one cultural relativists are making. The former underestimate the difference human culture makes, the latter overestimate it.

That is a good distinction, Thomas. I agree with that.

I agree as well. Sociobiology is not a cultural discipline, despite the fact that it studies behavior. Ants are not socialized/enculturated actors. They are driven virtually 100% by instinctive hardwiring. By contrast, humans behave toward a world that is interpreted both by individuals and the cultures which "program" them to a significant extent.

I agree as well. Sociobiology is not a cultural discipline, despite the fact that it studies behavior. Ants are not socialized/enculturated actors. They are driven virtually 100% by instinctive hardwiring. By contrast, humans behave toward a world that is interpreted both by individuals and the cultures which "program" them to a significant extent.

you know that as a fact how?

Is it populational v individual?
Is all development (biologically) individual.


The point abpout science investigation is "WHO PAYS"? . We are far beyond the day when ALL science was a "hobby" pursuit of Country Parsons. In those case. science was called Natural Philosophy. It wasnt till Wehlen creafted a term "Scientist" as one who pursues the natural and phywsical worls as a trade that we even began distinguishing the search for unifying theories and their component laws.

Today, science is way bwyond an ability for a country parson to pursue on his own. Most applied research is funded via industry and pharma, while most theoretical is funded by govt . Think of all the money needed for the HADRON or the SPACE Program.
Science , today , is collaborative and interdisciplanary. There are some caches pof "multidisciplanary pursuits but even those wind up coalescing with oldwer laws and thwories from other branches of science.

Where would biology be without chemistry be without physics?
Geology is mostly appleid physics in a theoretical pursuit.
HAving authored several NSF and SOE proposals , the interdisciplanary connections are almost demanded for first "cuts"

Not to appear smug but try walking in another's shoes and to see how science is just another way to earn a living

I agree, but I don't see how that relates to what I have said.

I agree, but I don't see how that relates to what I have said.

Back from the pub?