What are Laws of Nature?

[Anomalocaris]

I'd take that bet.

You count how many times people in these kinds of discussions chant slogans like Science is true no matter what you believe, use the term "science" as if it's synonymous with "reality," and declare that anyone who doubts that our scientific knowledge corresponds to the nature of the physical universe is some kind of lunatic.

And I'll count how many times people say that science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails, admit that scientific progress is inextricably linked to war, politics and business, and that our knowledge is merely imposing order on the chaos of phenomena to make it comprehensible to humans.

You really think there's a question as to whose bucket fills up first?

Slogans are a short and striking memorable phrase, usually used in advertising. I don't think you'll find many people here who think they're statements of 100% accuracy. I think it's highly questionable whose bucket will fill up first here if the choices are

'Science is true no matter what you believe'

and

'Science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails'

actually, at a fundamental level, the two are not mutually exclusive.   They can both be true.   In fact it is unlikely for it to be otherwise in any practical system.

material facts are not any less factual if the process whereby the facts are determined meandered through biases and cultural influences.    

It would be insipid to posit that demonstrability of the resulting facts should be weighed more lightly if cultural biase can be identified in the process of their determination.

[Istvan]

material facts are not any less factual if the process whereby the facts are determined meandered through biases and cultural influences.    

It would be insipid to posit that demonstrability of the resulting facts should be weighed more lightly if cultural biase can be identified in the process of their determination.

Really? If the methods of producing the information were riddled with bias and exclusionary practices, that's exactly what would make me question the reliability and objectivity of the information produced.

[HappySkeptic]

Really? If the methods of producing the information were riddled with bias and exclusionary practices, that's exactly what would make me question the reliability and objectivity of the information produced.

Reality is independent of biases.  Where bias can produce scientific mistakes, mistakes are part of science, and are self-correcting.

One person's paper isn't "science", or we would all be taking Ivermectin for COVID.

In physics, bias plays a very tiny role. In softer sciences, it plays a much bigger one, because data that would falsify bad science can be harder to come by or agree on.

[Anomalocaris]

material facts are not any less factual if the process whereby the facts are determined meandered through biases and cultural influences.    

It would be insipid to posit that demonstrability of the resulting facts should be weighed more lightly if cultural biase can be identified in the process of their determination.

Really? If the methods of producing the information were riddled with bias and exclusionary practices, that's exactly what would make me question the reliability and objectivity of the information produced.

that’s why we test things, and don’t just assert things based on what we think are powerful logic.

[Istvan]

Really? If the methods of producing the information were riddled with bias and exclusionary practices, that's exactly what would make me question the reliability and objectivity of the information produced.

Reality is independent of biases.  Where bias can produce scientific mistakes, mistakes are part of science, and are self-correcting.

One person's paper isn't "science", or we would all be taking Ivermectin for COVID.

In physics, bias plays a very tiny role.  In softer sciences, it plays a much bigger one, because data that would falsify bad science can be harder to come by or agree on.

As I said, it's wrong to make scientific inquiry synonymous with "reality." We're talking about scientific fields, in which women still face bias and exclusion on many levels. I have no reason to believe that this won't distort the reliability of the results, and every reason to believe that your belief in the "self-correcting" nature of scientific endeavor is a bit optimistic.

---

Really? If the methods of producing the information were riddled with bias and exclusionary practices, that's exactly what would make me question the reliability and objectivity of the information produced.

that’s why we test things, and don’t just assert things based on what we think are powerful logic.

okay, but you don't think that who is allowed to perform the testing, and who is excluded from the process, makes any difference whatsoever to the reliability of the results?

[HappySkeptic]

As I said, it's wrong to make scientific inquiry synonymous with "reality." We're talking about scientific fields, in which women still face bias and exclusion on many levels. I have no reason to believe that this won't distort the reliability of the results, and every reason to believe that your belief in the "self-correcting" nature of scientific endeavor is a bit optimistic.

Are you saying that because there are fewer women physicists, that physics has gender-biased errors that can never self-correct (I guess because men can't correct them)?

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that a poll here would bear that one out

I'd take that bet.

You count how many times people in these kinds of discussions chant slogans like Science is true no matter what you believe, use the term "science" as if it's synonymous with "reality," and declare that anyone who doubts that our scientific knowledge corresponds to the nature of the physical universe is some kind of lunatic.

And I'll count how many times people say that science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails, admit that scientific progress is inextricably linked to war, politics and business, and that our knowledge is merely imposing order on the chaos of phenomena to make it comprehensible to humans.

You really think there's a question as to whose bucket fills up first?

I think it's the issue described directly after the quoted comment -

IDK, I doubt that a poll here would bear that one out - though it may be true somewhere of someone. I suspect it's more the case that you believe something other people hold (to) amounts to such a thing, regardless of whether they'd see it as such or agree even in principle.

In fairness, it was a pretty safe bet - as this forum isn't exactly chock full of people who believe in god-anythings, views or otherwise. Frankly, it's mathematically impossible for the gods eye view bucket to fill up faster in this demo, than in the god believing demo.

[Istvan]

(Deleted duplicate post.)

[Istvan]

As I said, it's wrong to make scientific inquiry synonymous with "reality." We're talking about scientific fields, in which women still face bias and exclusion on many levels. I have no reason to believe that this won't distort the reliability of the results, and every reason to believe that your belief in the "self-correcting" nature of scientific endeavor is a bit optimistic.

Are you saying that because there are fewer women physicists, that physics has gender-biased errors?

Well, do you think that making physics a boys' club is a recipe for diversity of opinion? Or is it bound to create an environment of groupthink and dick swinging?

A friend of the family is a biologist whose theory about tadpoles being able to hatch in response to environmental pressures was initially ridiculed by the men in the field. Her determination in setting up elaborate experiments and gathering evidence finally vindicated her, but how much research hasn't been performed because of the condescension of the male establishment in various disciplines? 

Different people, Prof. Warkentin likes to say, ask different questions.

Escape hatching in red-eyed tree frogs

[The Grand Nudger]

Just imagine how much philosophy hasn't been done™ for that same reason. Broadly true in any context at present, really. Yet one more reason that science isn't a gods eye view of anything. It's not even a man and woman's eye view of the same things.