The Sociology of Science:(2 of 3)

This video considers the sociology of science, in particular the so-called "Strong Program" of David Bloor.

Пікірлер: 6

  • @JonSebastianF
    @JonSebastianF3 жыл бұрын

    I thought it was Bill Burr talking for a while :P

  • @HebaruSan
    @HebaruSan7 жыл бұрын

    Seems like this discussion makes a few good points and then gets fatally distracted by its own navel. The point of a scientific institution is to find ways to align the social pressures and interests with some sort of program of truth discovery, however you want to define those terms (arguably this is the good part of "publish or perish" nowadays). A physicist may in fact care what the consensus in his field says, but that consensus in turn cares about which experiments have been done and their results, what data has been collected, etc., and is going to shun someone who puts forth theories that make incorrect predictions. I struggle to see how this framing helps us understand groups like LIGO or CERN, since for all we knew their key experiments could have gone the other way, and the scientific consensus would have diverged accordingly from what it is now. It's silly to try to ignore that crucial flex point where the universe is asked to supply input into what the culture should do next. The culture if anything is like a support system for making more and more difficult observations. Also, of course it's a problem if what you're saying isn't "true" - that's what the public is paying you for! If it really is just a reflection of your interests, then the rest of us have no reason not to de-fund your departments and send you home. What's so special about your interests to do otherwise, if not the above? ("You" obviously meaning the folks you're reporting on, not actually _you,_ Garrett.)

  • @_VISION.
    @_VISION.3 жыл бұрын

    16:27 but why? Just because you don't admit what you are saying isn't true means that what you're saying is true? That's... intellectually dishonest. So being convinced of your own illusion is seen as trustworthy?

  • @vndx22

    @vndx22

    2 жыл бұрын

    Not if all the dominant social factors that influence your decision support a logical conclusion where the “truth” is in fact false. Smoking as an example of a technology that espoused to have positive health benefits until the fields of respiratory physiology and epidemiology allowed the scientific truth to be discovered and shared.

  • @Evilanious
    @Evilanious7 жыл бұрын

    11:30 You can't judge them if you want to understand why they do what they do? That is entirely backwards. You have to judge to understand why you or anyone else does anything. Very few people do something citing social factors. Far from respecting polynesians like they do scientists, these antropologists you describe disrespect scientists like they disrespect polynesians. I feel much more respected by a person who calls me out on my bullshit than by one who can only describe my social situation as though I have no meaningful motivations of my own. The argument might seem good when weird strawmans are erected of the alternatives. Saying that people 'believe because of the evidence' is no good but that is because citing 'evidence' without actually providing your actual evidence and argument is very weak one way or the other. Scientists believe things because what they consider to be good reasons. You don't have to agree with their reasons to threath them like reasons rather than social pressure.

  • @abdulkader7104
    @abdulkader71045 жыл бұрын

    i have sort of interjection. i m a muslim and islam there are many proofs like the oral tradition how we kept it from the time of mhamad (pbuh) in a scientific manner(plz if you doubt it research it because there are plenty of videos) the writing tradition. And that the quran gives a falsification test just like scientist use when it says that if you think that this isn't from god then bring something like it and you can research it and see that at the time of the prophet the best poetry was produced and the poets they claimed that this work that the prophet is reciting is unhuman like Walid ibn al-Mughirah (plz if you doubt my words do a research but see the muslims scholars not christians or atheists). So my question doesn this make my belief totally reasonable even from and outsider point of view and if not plz tell me why wanna know why PS: if you are gonna ask me why about sharia law and why we do this and that there are plenty of muslims on youtube that explain whatever you wanna ask Plz reply