3.8 KiB
Science
Not to be confused with soyence.
Science (from Latin scientia, knowledge or understanding) in a wide sense means systematic gathering, inference and organization of knowledge, in a more strict sense this process has to be kept rational by obeying some specific strict rules and adhering to whatever principles of objectivity are currently accepted, nowadays for example the scientific method or mathematical proof. Sciences in the strict sense include mathematics (so called formal science), physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, as well as "soft sciences" such as psychology, sociology etc. Science is not to be confused with pseudoscience (such as gender studies or astrology) and soyence (political propaganda masked as "science").
TODO: some noice tree of sciences or smth
There is no simple objective definition of a strict science -- the definition of science changes with development of society, technology, culture, politics and so on. Science should basically stand for the most rational and objective knowledge we're able to practically obtain, however the specific criteria for this are unclear and have to be agreed on. The scientific method is evolving and there are many debates over it, with some even stating that there can be no universal method of science. The p-value used to determine whether measurements are statistically significant has basically just an arbitrarily set value for what's considered a "safe enough" result. Some say that if a research is to be trusted, it has to be peer reviewed, i.e. that what's scientific has to be approved by chosen experts -- this may be not just because people can make mistakes but also because in current highly competitive society there appears science bloat, obscurity and tendencies to push fake research and purposeful deception, i.e. our politics and culture are already defining what science is. However the stricter the criteria for science, the more monopolized, centralized, controlled and censored it becomes.
What should we then accept as legit science? We, in the context of our ideal society, argue for NOT creating a strict definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing morality" with laws etc. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked as OK or NOT OK. We might define the term less retarded science so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/soyence" from the real, good and truly useful science. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as our technology, it should be completely free as in freedom, selfless, suckless as much as possible, unobscured etc.
Never confuse trusting scientists vs trusting science (especially in capitalism and other dystopias), the former is literally faith (soyence), no different from blindly trusting religious preachers and political propaganda, the latter means only trusting that which you yourself can test and verify at home and therefore having real confidence. Also do NOT confuse or equate science with academia. As with everything, under capitalism academia has become rotten to the core, research is motivated by profit and what's produced is mostly utter bullshit shat out by wannabe PhDs who need to mass produce "something" as a part of the crazy academia publish-or-perish game. As with everything in capitalism, the closer you look, the more corruption you find.