My overall point is that our senses are biased by a combination of biological and social factors that even fundamental axioms such as spacetime are untrustworthy. This is important because it legitimises antirealism as a scientific position. And that’s important because a lot of people won’t take political positions seriously unless they have a scientific backing. The fact that antirealism has better scientific backing than realism is important for trans and indigenous liberation.
It was mostly the part about the better scientific backing, despite science being based in realism, what with all of that pesky empirical data. This “scientific anti-realism” or whatever people want to call it is little more than solipsism-lite. The diet coke of egocentric nonsense. It’s a great position to take, though, because you basically don’t have to prove shit if everything is just unknowable outside of self. Not a very fun way to actually live, I’ll add.
Science isn’t based in realism. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and consistency through repetition and peer review. The fact that most current science is based on a certain paradigm doesn’t mean that paradigm is correct. Einstein proved that Newtonian motion, upon which all prior physics was based, was incorrect. Likewise, realism is a paradigm that can be disproven. And it has been disproven by Hoffman.
My overall point is that our senses are biased by a combination of biological and social factors that even fundamental axioms such as spacetime are untrustworthy. This is important because it legitimises antirealism as a scientific position. And that’s important because a lot of people won’t take political positions seriously unless they have a scientific backing. The fact that antirealism has better scientific backing than realism is important for trans and indigenous liberation.
Now I KNOW you’re taking the piss. Cheers, mate.
The genocide of indigenous religions was motivated by the political ideology of realism
It was mostly the part about the better scientific backing, despite science being based in realism, what with all of that pesky empirical data. This “scientific anti-realism” or whatever people want to call it is little more than solipsism-lite. The diet coke of egocentric nonsense. It’s a great position to take, though, because you basically don’t have to prove shit if everything is just unknowable outside of self. Not a very fun way to actually live, I’ll add.
So yes. Piss taken. I get it. Haha.
Science isn’t based in realism. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and consistency through repetition and peer review. The fact that most current science is based on a certain paradigm doesn’t mean that paradigm is correct. Einstein proved that Newtonian motion, upon which all prior physics was based, was incorrect. Likewise, realism is a paradigm that can be disproven. And it has been disproven by Hoffman.