Comment on ...
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks agoI think you’re reading statement B too literally. I’m pretty sure the idea behind it is related to critical theory and is an objection to the idea that rationality is trustworthy and that class conflict should be regarded as a higher truth. In that way statement B is relevant to statement A; it’s an implicit rejection of it.
saltesc@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.
The entire post itself, and your reply, is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to an -ism beyond supporting an idea.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
The idea is that the place the OP meme is coming from is a belief that science and agenda are not different things and rather are inseparable. It is very unscientific, it’s a fundamentally anti-intellectual attitude.
saltesc@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
In this context, you use the term “belief” very well.
erev@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but. The first statement is not true because it’s nonsensical. There is no universally objective truth; it is still filtered through our relativistic perceptions of reality which are fabrications of our mind created from the raw abstractions of the data we perceive.
saltesc@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It’s not though. That’s all you.
The irony of such a statement…
JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
Pure objective truths exist, but humans are not objective creatures so our process of finding those objective truths is flawed at times.