“You can’t argue with science”
Yes, you can.
Science is a process of making observations and testing hypotheses.
You can argue with a current scientific theory by re-testing and maybe disproving it.
“Science” is not a list of unimpeachable facts that are set in stone, it’s a fluid and changing body of knowledge based on observable evidence, and as people observe different things, or make better-quality observations, “science” will say different things.
No, being in denial about reality isn’t productive, but you are literally supposed to argue with science.
Propping up outdated and harmful ideas about gender/sex or anything else with “you can’t argue with science” seems to be, itself, an unscientific idea.
Also a lot of things people consider scientific fact just because they exist in the scientific field aren’t. Science has always gotten tied up in value judgments, that often reinforce oppressive dynamics, which are not the least based in quantifiable fact, but merely the subjective frame by which science has shared its observations with society.
As a scientist and a teacher, I urge you to always be questioning the world around you and the information you are presented with.
But. Also be aware that when you start an argument with Science, you will be expected to back it up with evidence. A large body of what we consider ‘Science’ is arguable, but there’s also lot of stuff out there that’s got lots of evidence to support it – so you need to back up your shit. Arguing with Science needs you to do more than just say ‘I reckon you’re wrong’.
From an information science perspective you also have to realize that scientists are just people and people have egos and desires for power and money. Sometimes these things cause people lie, falsify data, misrepresent results in a way that upholds their beliefs or their funding or their jobs. You should always “consider the source” and be aware of
potentialmotives and conflicts of interest. I repeat, scientists are just people, corruptible people.
Published
Wolfytot 