Even science can't be considered culturally unbiased because it doesn't include indigenous knowledge

>Even science can't be considered culturally unbiased because it doesn't include indigenous knowledge
t. girl in my writing class
Was she wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I dont consider sociology, psychology, environmental studies, etc.. legitimate sciences. If you factor those out shes absolutely wrong.

Kind of? In the sense that there might be things about plants and shit that local indigenous people know but scientists wouldn't just take their word for it if it hasn't been studied by them. But that doesn't really have anything to do with culture, it has to do with the requirement of rigor.

>Was she wrong?

Vast majority of indigenous knowledge consists of uncritical, traditionalistic assertions that lack any rigour or anything close that can resemble scientific method.

Yes, she was.

Sounds like a video I saw were a woman was saying that science was while biased because it didn't make allowances for African witch doctors calling down lightning on people.

Someone in the crowd commented "because you can't prove it" and everyone lost their shit.

When you deconstruct " bias" , and "culture" are two perspectives, lenses that we see the noumeal world. These terms are a trap that staple the sunglasses to our eyes.
The world is a hologram translation of rods and cones to our visual cortex bias is inescapable.
Science and technology are at there most basic, "solutions to human problems or products of a human ecountering a problem"
When science confronted these terms like culture and bias they invented standardization so that scientific progress can be translated across all cultures.
This is number at heart yes.
This is their semiotics.
Makes me think who shit talked who more pythagoras or plato.

>When you deconstruct " bias" , and "culture" are two perspectives, lenses that we see the noumeal world.
>see the noumeal world

Indigenous knowledge which has scientific proof behind it is science and is therefore incorporated in general sciences, indigenous knowledge which involves dancing around a bleeding pig liver turned inside out to cure cancer most probably has no feasible documentation behind it and threfore is not scientifically valid.
Or to make it short, give me one fucking example where some ancient knowledge has been dismissed in a scientific work with the remark "was found by niggers, therefore invalid, q.e.d."
Ancient Mayas already knew that doing coke makes you resistant to exhaustion, which is certainly accepted and proven by modern science, so there is your fucking indigenous knowledge included in science.

Of course not. Well, in a sense it does. The thing is, "indigenous knowledge" isn't universal whereas science is, which means anything true in science must be true in "indigenous knowledge", unless the latter is false, which it is by definition since it's not universal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
Just leaving this here

Its called Pythagoreans theorem because writers during the Roman period attributed the discover to Pythagorus. We could call it "Chief Unbukawuka's Theorem" but what would be the point?

yes. wrong. Science includes any knowledge that has been tested systematically by experiment

>doesn't include indigenous knowledge

Such as Aristotle Flat Earth Theory bullshit?
African Black Magic? Karl Marx's Marxism?
Greek Mythology? Islam? The bible?
Hip Hop Music? Picasso Modern Art?
Shamanism? Hispanic Music and Cuisine?

That's not Science and Science don't need to include that.

Except it totally does. Arguably more accurately. Every indegionous piece of knowledge such as herbal remedies and illusive slights of hand that were once considered "magic" or known in a topological way are known at deeper and more profound levels when seen through the proof and scope of science. Opting to see things not for the main effects but the building blocks of said effects.

Yes or no depending on what "culturally-unbiased" means. Maybe it doesn't matter if science is culturally biased.

people who think like this are retarded

aristotle never believed in a flat earth you colossal brainlet stooge never comment on history again

You are wrong

Pythagoras & Aristotle taught that the Earth is Spherical.

Pre-Socratic philosophers such as Anaximander, Democritus, Thales & Leucippus believed in Flat Earth.

Herodotus (1st Historian) believed in Flat Earth.

Tradition caused slave men to hang their wives if they gave birth to twins because they believed she had bed another man behind her husbands back and that was the cause of having two babies.

Food for thought.

SCIENCE

Because you can shatter almost anything if you hit it hard enough.

Amazing, a real life example of "you can't know nuffin".

Which part of "lol check if your shit actually works before assuming you got it all figured out" is restricting scientific progress?

Its actually possible for a woman to give birth to twins with different dads. It's rare in humans but common in many species like prairie dogs.

If one twin is black and another twin is white, then the cuck husband is screwed.

You can consider the underlying philosophy to be partially culturally-directed, but not science, no.

...

This. There's some knowledge we don't yet possess that some indigenous groups have simply from experience.

Can be relevant.

I am unfamiliar with that use of the word "bias."

>theory can (and has) impact practice
The difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than it is in theory.

There's no sure fire way to determine if something really "doesn't work", if you throw a theory out just because it appeared to not hold true even a billion times then you restrict the possibility of potential future discoveries therefore everything must be allowed

>unironically thinks science is intrinsically true
daily reminder that SR and QM can't both be true, meaning we know for certain our current model of physics is false.

Saying that something is "culturally unbiased" is like saying you don't have an accent.

>what is QFT

Science is intrinsically true by virtue of forming conclusions based on evidence and probability whilst assuming any hypotheses beyond them to be false in a methodological sense (falsification) such that new knowledge can be accumulated into a vast wealth of previous knowledge, a rigorous structure which continuously grows in its expanse and capacity to describe reality as it truly is to the best of our ability, yet always allowing for the possibility of anything in that structure being wrong or incomplete such that there will always be a way to correct itself.

No other pursuit of knowledge can claim any more authenticity to adhering to the truth since any other pursuit would by virtue of not being science simply be asserting its own truth without justifying it in a way which is universal and independently verifiable by all.

The need to describe reality, and the concept of reality, is fake. Things are only as real as people think they are. If you can convince people that something is true, then it IS true, and science is mostly irrelevant to do that. The need for universality is also just an empty assumption.
I don't believe the earth is flat, but if you can convince people that the arth is flat, then that's the truth to those people. The need for usefulness and practicality is an arbitrarily chosen criterium as well, why not instead make consider what makes people feel good the most important thing? That's also a valid way to argue.

That's just solipsism. We do the best we can. Nothing more can be expected from worms on a rock. Gradual accumulation of knowledge is hard and frustrating, but it reaps rewards. Be stoic and suffer. Fight ruin with a smile in your heart.

Wrong, Marxism is a science. It comes in somewhere above macroeconomics and below chemistry.

your point of view sounds very familiar from somewhere..

Yes

youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

That's a whole lot of word salad just to say that you don't understand the meaning of either "intrinsic" or "true".

Our current model of physics its false, we just know it to be incomplete

I accept your concession.