Science is not objective, it’s deeply subjective. For example, humans are fish and there’s no such thing as trees, according to a couple of bugs in the laws of taxonomy. While we can identify highly consistent laws at the fundamental level of physics, each added layer of complexity that drives science closer to our immediate perceptions, introduces more problems and bugs.
By the time we get to sciences like taxonomy, food science, and sociology which deal in our direct experiences, science is obviously almost entirely subjective. And I don’t mean it’s without merit. I mean that our opinions have a deep deep influence on the direction in which science develops. Our findings are true, given those opinions.
Science does not identify objective truth. Science expands knowledge from axioms. The more complex the things we deal with, the more axioms we must add. At the fundamental level, we have few axioms. At the socio-perceptual level, we have hundreds of unconscious axioms.
Antirealism advocates that we take control of our axioms, instead of denying them. Because if we deny them, we will be vulnerable to attempts to change them. We won’t even notice when the media shifts them in us. But if we choose our axioms, then we choose what paths science goes down, we choose the future of our knowledge generation. We choose our world. And then science tells us about the world we have chosen.
So we are to just ignore science then? Is science also a tool of the bourgeoisie?
Science is not objective, it’s deeply subjective. For example, humans are fish and there’s no such thing as trees, according to a couple of bugs in the laws of taxonomy. While we can identify highly consistent laws at the fundamental level of physics, each added layer of complexity that drives science closer to our immediate perceptions, introduces more problems and bugs.
By the time we get to sciences like taxonomy, food science, and sociology which deal in our direct experiences, science is obviously almost entirely subjective. And I don’t mean it’s without merit. I mean that our opinions have a deep deep influence on the direction in which science develops. Our findings are true, given those opinions.
Science does not identify objective truth. Science expands knowledge from axioms. The more complex the things we deal with, the more axioms we must add. At the fundamental level, we have few axioms. At the socio-perceptual level, we have hundreds of unconscious axioms.
Antirealism advocates that we take control of our axioms, instead of denying them. Because if we deny them, we will be vulnerable to attempts to change them. We won’t even notice when the media shifts them in us. But if we choose our axioms, then we choose what paths science goes down, we choose the future of our knowledge generation. We choose our world. And then science tells us about the world we have chosen.