agonzalezsosto

The Social Practice of Science

I feel like science lives in a strange neighborhood in the city of human intellectual output. It would be so satisfying for its definition to be clean cut and simple, but I don't think it necessarily can be. At the end of the day, if you look at the evolution of science, its origins are in philosophy. A lot of practices we consider to be scientific nowadays originally came from philosophy, and to an extent, the drive that powers science came from ancient philosophers.

My understanding is that science refers to a field that is supposed to provide objective analyses of reality. Also, the practice of science is rooted on the basic understanding that no single individual can have access to objective reality, as every single person has perceptual biases and shifts that prevent this from being the case. However, through the co-operation, evaluation, and questioning that is supposed to be central in its practice through the implementation of the scientific method, to whatever extent possible, biases and errors that individuals might create might be ironed out.

However, this means that socialization is a key element of science. Since no single person can have access to “objective reality” as their perceptions are affected by their experiences and limitations, the practice of science requires multiple people. It is a social activity. And, as any other social activity, it is subject to the virtues and vices of human interaction. This is a big vulnerability in science – it can be skewed by humans to benefit their purposes. However, this is also a key feature of it.

Can we say that “physics is reluctant to change”? I don't know – it almost feels like it depends on what you mean by physics. Is “physics” a synecdoche that refers to its practitioners, or to its commonly accepted theories? Or is physics an abstract value that refers to the desire to find the truth about our physical world?

Personally, I think it matters to be clear on which one is meant. Physics in itself has no agenda. However, the academia of physics might, since it's a collective of people aiming to steer a field in a given way. Is it even possible to separate the body of knowledge from the container “academia” that houses it? Can one exist without the other?

It feels like this is where the talk of “ecologies of practice” begins to make some sense to me. If an ecology is a space (be it literally or figuratively) where there's an interaction between different parts of a complex whole, then it seems to make sense to think about how these different parts may interact.

I think that it's key to understand that science is a social practice simply due to the fact that it requires socialization to be articulated and developed. This means that on some level, there has to be a post-individual structure that evaluates the credibility of claims made in the field. This might be frustrating, but at the same time, it prevents the system from falling into incoherence. However, incoherence relative to what?

Perhaps there are other ways. Perhaps the centralization of power and its delegation to academia leaves a huge vulnerability. This gives a select few the power to decide the value systems present in the practice of physics. What if twisted or incompetent individuals get to steer the value system of a field? What effect will that have on humanity, and for how long?

It seems like a complex thing is that just as we as individuals don't have access to objective reality, it also seems that groups don't inherently balance each other out into a reasonable center point. If that were the case, then humanity would be a lot more peaceful than what it has been so far.

Steering fields of thought (and what their values are) is something that takes active thought, re-evaluation and clarity. It's not something that happens intuitively. This is also the case with governments, groups... any form of relationship, really.