Thread by @lymanstoneky

the use of the word "hyperobject" is in fact prima facie proof that a person is an unreliable narrator of the world, and in fact even their own mental states

few know this

it is with some pleasure i inform everyone that object-oriented ontology is absolutely nuts, and the fact that it has given rise to the complete fabrication of fake objects merely for the purpose of reifying depression into a philosophical concept is the proof!

the rock does not care how it relates to the tree!

i will accept object-oriented ontology from pantheists and no one else. only pantheists are allowed to rock that strong of stuff.

i am so much fun in my theory class you would not believe how much fun i am, i have all the most fun opinions

anyways, it's very fun to be in a theory class when your theory of how to produce a theory of science is that we should observe scientists and describe what they actually do, and whatever that is, is science. this view is extremely unpopular!

the idea that we might define science as what-scientists-do is shockingly divisive! because it turns out much of what scientists do is not what people *wish* science was.

So the funny thing is, the most prominent "science defenders" like Haack end up defining scientists as just "people socially recognized as part of the institution of science" anyways! Nobody tries to define-scientists-by-traits!

https://twitter.com/zenobiotic/status/1461346111134703616

See, there's also some differences here. Religion predates clergy who practice it. Art predates the modern conception of the artist. But "science" is an extremely recent concept as a distinct entity, even as "rigorous empirical inquirers" clearly predate!

https://twitter.com/LagodaBrian/status/1461342412421443585

So we recognize that religion is not merely what clergy do in part because we know religion predates any of the clerical institutions which exist: but the role of scientists clearly predates the institution of science as a concept, so it's a bit different!

And indeed science as a term really does come into being as a way to describe what a group of people are already doing! "Natural science" as distinct from other fields of knowledge emerges in the 18th/19th centuries! Very recently!

I'm saying: "scientist" as a role is largely content-less. Try defining it and you'll inevitably either define-away large shares of people labeled scientists, or define-in tons of people recognized scientists don't want to share the label with.

https://twitter.com/zenobiotic/status/1461350978968457221

So it's better to think of "scientist" as a fairly arbitrary category, like a club member. And science is merely "what scientists do."

The problem is many "science defenders" simultaneously want to argue that "science" is defined in ideal terms, but "scientists" are defined in basically social terms, but also that failures by "scientists" to achieve the ideals of "science" should not be seen to....

... impinge on the credibility of "science" itself. What many "science defenders" want is to have their cake and eat it too: scientists are whoever we let into our club, we represent a higher ideal, and when in fact we fail to represent it, it doesn't implicate "Science"

The problem with this account is:
1) It makes "Science" merely whatever set of ideals the speaker happens to hold (hence why debates about what "science" is are so interminable)
2) It is manifestly unpersuasive to anybody on the outside

To those on the outside, the extent to which "science" is credible has very little to do with the ideals scientists aspire to and quite a lot to do with the actual practices of science!