RE: https://mastodon.social/@grimalkina/116680924814537847
At the risk of resurrecting the "science wars," this to me is always the case for a strong constructivism.
It isn't hard to prove that investigator standpoint influences results. It's pretty damned easy, in fact. The stance of the hard core positivists in the "science wars" was that this is something we shouldn't talk about because it "undermines science."
But here's the thing, pretending that this doesn't exist doesn't make science stronger. It just leaves any inconvenient research finding wide open to this kind of attack.
The point of the best of #STS for me has always been not to somehow attack science but to do the hard work of rooting science in something other than the myth of total objectivity. If you do that, then you're ready for this kind of fascist horseshit. If you stand on inherent objectivity, then in exactly the same way as the East Anglia controversy showed, you are exposed.








