Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chroniclerofblarney t1_ius5hya wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Does Science Need History? A Conversation with Lorraine Daston by Maxwellsdemon17

Whoever pays for the work decides what work gets done. Science, as a set of disciplinary practices of people, happens to the extent that other people wish to direct resources toward it. Those other people’s desires and goals are determined by historical forces. Thus, science is driven by historical forces, even if its outcomes may unfold quite independent of historical forces (of course, and not wishing to muddy that main point, things like climate science show that historical forces are very much entangled with experimental data, too).

2

[deleted] t1_iusszuy wrote

Yes----BUT-----the same things that affect WHAT science is done also ensure that it must be done correctly. We have drugs for cancer and Sickle Cell Anemia because of good science, not bad politics. We have drugs for erectile dysfunction because of a serendipitous observation in a different clinical study. We have lithium and NiMH battery tech because of good science done 30 years ago. Science is ultimately results-driven and verifiable. Historical narratives often get twisted by politics.

As far as climate science goes, the problem there is more the politics than the history.

And any scientific argument based on history is very weak. Some say evolution is based on history, as in natural history, but fossils aren't history. They are scientific evidence. Evolution has overwhelming scientific evidence behind it.

1