Science is a social construct! The scientific method is inherently limiting in the pursuit of knowledge! We must have epistemological anarchy to solve science's woes!

R1: This isn't so much badscience as it is badphilosophyofscience. At any rate, the premise of the video is that because science is invariably swayed by culture, and because the great scientists (or whatever) only made their discoveries by ignoring the scientific method, we should give up on the scientific method singularly and go with an "anything goes" approach - in the words of the video, "epistemological anarchy."

This, of course, is stupid.

Firstly, we're acutely aware of our own biases. That's why we approach scientific endeavours with objectivity in mind. And that's what sets us apart. The "scientific method" produces objective results by design. You can't change the outcomes of an experiment with your opinion about the experiment. And, sure, there can be arguments about methodology, but those arguments are centered on objectivity and validity. We're trying to be as objective as possible - so save the criticism.

Secondly, the "rejecting the dogma of the day" the narrator talks about - in other words, what Kuhn would call a scientific revolution. Yes, those are special events. No, they're not unscientific. We rejected Newtonian physics in favor of relativity because we knew Newtonian physics was inadequate for some problems (precession of Mercury, anyone?). That doesn't mean that the paradigm shift was ascientific, or prompted by thinking in an un-scientific way.

Thirdly, there is no one "scientific method." Generally, it's a "think, test, publish" cycle. It doesn't have to be. We can go "test, think, publish," or "detect, publish, think," as long as the researchers aren't doing anything obviously evil. The narrator talks about science in the way a middle-schooler might think of science - "hypothesize, test, accept or reject the hypothesis."

Fourthly, what the hell is epistemological anarchy anyways? If it's an openness to new methods, generally, the sciences are all-ears as long as the methodology isn't brain-dead. If it's about rejecting the frameworks we use day-to-day, screw that. ANOVA isn't prejudiced - it's a statistical method, for Chrissakes. We have frameworks packed with tools designed with objectiveness in mind. Only someone who was totally scientifically illiterate would propose that they weren't (or, at least, weren't objective at all, as is the implication in this video) - or that we need to replace them.

TL;DR Maybe science isn't entirely objective, but it's more objective by a long stretch than econ. Plus, it helps to actually read something about the philosophy of science before you weigh in.

/r/badscience Thread Link - youtube.com