There Seems To Be A Disconnect Between The Natural And Social Sciences When It Comes To Handling Arguments In Favour Of The Theory Of Evolution, Mass Vaccination, Ecological Warning, And Integration Policies. However, This Does Not Suffice. Scientists And Liberal Rationalists Blame Those Who Reject Science And Democracy, Who Are Ignorant And Refuse To Embrace Scientific Thinking And Liberal Rationality For Their Irrationality. Also, “Relativistic Philosophies” Or A Social Science Current, Which Equates Truth And Belief, Republicanism And Populism, Reason And Emotion, Is Partly To Blame.

Is It Time To Call It Quits On The Project Of Investigating Beliefs Now? It’s Not As If We Don’t Know They’re False, So Why Keep Trying To Understand Them?

“False Beliefs” And The Social Sciences

Abstract And Binary Thinking Is How We Think. There Appear To Be Only Two Options When Confronted With The Scenario Of Evidence Diversification And Belief Pluralization, Which Become Two Dead Ends That Are Repeated Like A Loop And Can Even Be Combined Without Conflicting Each Other.

Scientism Is A Way Of Life That Morally Elevates Scientific Knowledge (Especially Natural Science Knowledge, But Not Exclusively) Above All Else. In Other Words, People Who Don’t Follow The Rules Of Scientific Rationality Are Illogical.

Who, On The Other Hand, Lives Their Entire Lives On The Basis Of Science? You Can Be An Excellent Molecular Biologist And Still Vote, Fall In Love, Or Believe In God Or Astrology, Even If You’re An Expert In The Field. Scientism Is A Method Of Life And An Ideology, Not A Substance Of Science.

Scepticism Is Problematic Today Because It Minimises The Possibility Of Understanding Different Ways Of Thinking And Believing And Acting To An Abstract Condemnation. Contemporary Irrationalism Is Problematic. Does Criticising “False Beliefs” In Natural Or Social Science Have Any Place? Is It Your Job To Call Out People For Their Stupidity, Incompetence, Manipulation, Or Plain Stupidity?

The Facts Do Not Favour Us.

Disputes Over Public Space Are Becoming Increasingly Necessary In Order For “Scientific Facts” And Their Supporting Evidence To Prevail. If They Ever Did It On Their Own, Which Is Highly Unlikely, They Now Live Side By Side With Other Forms Of Knowledge That Are Validated Using Different Standards.

Hard Data Allows Us To Win Debates, Impose Arguments, And Ultimately Endorse Public Policies In An Increasingly Aggressive Field Of Battle. There Is Also A Need For Social Trust In Utilitarian Science And Rationality, Much Like Modern Magic.

Flying Saucers And Unsolvable Mysteries Enthusiasts Tend To Exaggerate The Scientific Method’s Rigour And Use It As A Litmus Test For Their Claims. If You Look For It, The Social Role Of Science Can Be Seen In The Big Public Debates Like Health, The Economy, And Even Gender Relations.

There Are Numerous “Scientifically Proven” Therapeutic Criteria In The Health And Wellness Industry. Healing Tonics Of The Early Twentieth Century Seem To Be The Same As Yoga And Meditation Instructors Today Who Have Abandoned The Spiritual Tone In Favour Of Neuroscience Research Or Double-Blind Studies To Back Up The Claims Of Their Practises. “Evidence-Based” Cognitive-Behavioral Models In Psychology Contest Psychoanalysis’ Legitimacy As A Treatment, Accusing Freud’s Steadfast Adherents Of Being Little More Than Modern Day Sorcerers, According To The Models. In All Cases, Empirical Evidence Derived From Statistics Or Clinical Studies Serves As A Foundation For A Legitimacy That Must Constantly Negotiate Results In An Uncertain And Sinuous Context. Finally,

So, What Can Be Said About The Financial Sector? Economic Experts Have A Performative Nature, That Is, They Are Part Of The Fabric Of Reality, As Demonstrated By Significant Work Done In The Last Decade. In The 1990s, The Case Of Argentina Stood Out As A Paradigm, And Local Sociologists And Sociologists Did An Excellent Job Studying It. Javier Milei, A Cartoon Character In The Argentine Media, Condenses All The “Scientificity” Of Neoliberal Economics In Cartoonish Disputes Against John Maynard Keynes’ Ideas Under The Slogan: That’s Not Scientific!.

Roxana Kreimer Is A Prominent Feminist Philosopher Who Advocates For “Scientific Feminism” And Claims That Patriarchy Does Not Exist. Her “Hard Data,” Such As Statistics And Genetics, Show That The Gender Wage Gap Is Real. Gender Inequality, The Glass Ceiling, And Low Pay Are All Creations Of Ideological Feminism That Doesn’t Care About Scientific Research. According To Argentine Media, Its Popularity Stems Less From Actual Scientific Issues And More From The Echo It Creates In An Ideological Debate Stoked By Anti-Feminist Paranoia. “Hard Data” Mantra Sounds More Like A Religious Prayer Of Biological Naturalism Than Like A Sincere Integrated Look Between Biological Factors Without Any Problematization Of The Research Questions It Enunciates.

Furthermore, It Would Be Beneficial To Conduct Additional Research On The Most Efficient Means Of Disseminating Beliefs, As Only This Can Help Us Better Understand And Design Resources For Disseminating The Science We Are Defending.

There Are Some Exceptions To The Rule, But For The Most Part, We Don’t Live Our Lives According To Scientific Rationality All The Time. This Should Be A Part Of A Real Democracy, Not Just One That Tolerates Different Points Of View, But One That Allows People To Coexist In Different Dimensions Of Reality.

The Greatest Threat Does Not Come From Astrology, Quackery, Or Religion, All Of Which Are Still Regarded As Fringe And Marginalised Fields Of Study. In Our Opinion, The Scientific Logic Used To Legitimise Projects That Are Harmful To The Common Good Is More Contentious. Deniers Of Class Subordination, Gender And Contemporary Racism, As Well As Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaccination Activists, And Climate Change Sceptics, Are All Very Similar To Neoliberal Economists. Regardless Of Who Makes The Claim, All Provide “Evidence” To Back It Up.

However, They Are Not For Democratic Coexistence Of Beliefs, But Rather Those Of An Effective Belief With Criteria Of Evidence That Are Intended For “Scientists,” As A Result Of Neoliberal Individualism. This Diversification Of Certainties (Which Is Also An Increase In Uncertainty) Is A Consequence Of This.

Complicated Scientific Knowledge Construction Methods Necessitate An Examination Of The Relationship Between Nature And Society, As Well As A Consideration Of How That Knowledge Is Circulated. We Can No Longer Rely On The Abstract Idea That Truth, Like Time, Is On Our Side In The Social Or Natural Sciences.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *