- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
U.S. regulators on Wednesday banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation’s food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.
U.S. regulators on Wednesday banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation’s food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.
The problem with science is that so many people are taught and believe it is a purely objective way to quantify every possible phenomena, and a method to provide a final truth to a question.
Science is a debate, and science is a dialectical process. But both, or especially the latter, is partly more complex than explaining science as the ultimate rational pursuit of truth but also abjectly rejects the neoliberal concept of ending history.
Science cannot be dialectical because this proposes that science isn't final, and if science isn't final then nature isn't final, and if nature isn't final then how can society be final?
There's obviously more on top of this but that's a lot of my feelings behind the anti intellectual movement and why the (liberal) opposition to it isn't doing itself many favours.
That's true. I'm fairly well educated and I don't feel like I'm completely ready to have this discussion. I can't even conceive of the idea of laying this burden on the public to figure it out by themselves. Science is sold, especially by our current mainstream journalistic standards, as the ultimate truth, unless it presents an inconvenient scenario. It's a tool that proves things beyond any doubt. It's also used as a controversy and outrage factory which alternates between telling us that coffee, eggs and wine are either going to kill us or save our lives. Rinse and repeat, let the clicks come in.
People are not even sure what the meaning of "science" is - what is purpose beyond the limited framework of the empire ought to be.