2mo ago

...

You're viewing a single thread.

165 comments

This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn't necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.
This could be done with any combination of...
"Under capitalism,
<random thing>
is..."
"Under
<random ism>
, science is..."
They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.
I.e. It's an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.
Unless, of course, "that's the joke" and I'm just that dumb.
Edit: I'm not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that's what science be and anything else isn't science, it's just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.
- I think you're reading statement B too literally. I'm pretty sure the idea behind it is related to critical theory and is an objection to the idea that rationality is trustworthy and that class conflict should be regarded as a higher truth. In that way statement B is relevant to statement A; it's an implicit rejection of it.
  
  It's not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they're just not related.
  The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.
  Edit: Sorry, I'm drunk af, so probably you are right...maybe... At least in my mind, I'm just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can't see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using "science". It's bias. That's very unscientific.
  
  can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.
  The idea is that the place the OP meme is coming from is likely a belief that science and agenda are not different things and rather are inseparable. It is very unscientific, it's a fundamentally anti-intellectual attitude.
  
  In this context, you use the term "belief" very well.
  
  This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but. The first statement is not true because it's nonsensical. There is no universally objective truth; it is still filtered through our relativistic perceptions of reality which are fabrications of our mind created from the raw abstractions of the data we perceive.
  
  Pure objective truths exist, but humans are not objective creatures so our process of finding those objective truths is flawed at times.
- Wow thanks! I’ve seen other instances of this fallacy but never knew its name (nor recognized that it is a common fallacy form).
- Any process unless specifically adjusted to compensate for it (and the adjustment itself is a distortion of it and has secondary effects) will be affected by the environment it is working in.
  So specifically for Capitalism and the practice of Science under it, funding and the societal pressure on everybody including scientists to have more money - as wealth is a status symbol in that environment - are he main pathways via which Capitalism influences the practice of Science.
  It's incredibly Reductionist and even anti-Scientific to start from the axiom that environment does not at all influence the way Science is practiced (hence Capitalism is unrelated to Science) and then just make an entire argument on top of such a deeply flawed assumption
- Thank you. Something about me was rubbing me the wrong way, but I couldn't articulate it.
- Assuming this meme is some form of Marxist propaganda, it would be a self-defeating meme, since Marxism is rooted in dialectical materialism which is itself a scientific process. At least according to Marx.
  
  ITT it's still the 1920s I guess.
  Political theory has moved on since those days, you know.
  Granted, there are people who quote Marx like he's a religious figure but those people are wrong and stupid.
  
  Woah woah woah, I'm not a Marxist, but you're going to have to back up your claims on how "political theory has moved on" and why that ties into Marxism not being based on dialectical materialism.
  
  Please list all the recommended political theory you've read from the 1920s to now that disproves whatever you're claiming is purely 1920s political theory.
  
  Heh, you're a leftist? Name every leftism.
  Look up critical theory if you want to.
  
  Buddy this is critical theory.
  
  I think I somehow replied to the wrong comment, it was meant to be a reply to the guy who randomly started talking about Marxism
  
  I don't want to deflate your assumption, but "Science is pure objectivity and truth".
  The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here's the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it's got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It's just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of "science".
  
  Well i guess you're right. I just wanted to point out an observation. Guess i just got ignoratio elenchied
  
  Unfortunately that's not how communism works in practice
- You're dead on. Science is a process. I can science the shit out of baking soda and vinegar to make a volcano, and I don't need government funding to do it. What you science is effected by capitalism, but capitalism is just a scare word. No matter what you want to do, if it requires a significant amount of power or work to create your materials, a cost is accrued somewhere, and someone has to pay it, whether it costs dollars or beaver pelts.
  
  This is reductive to the extreme.
  Clearly if all you want to do is to build a baking soda volcano you can go ahead.
  It's also pretty clear that baking soda volcanoes aren't the kind of science the meme is talking about.
  
  Capitalism isn't just about "things need funding" the point of the meme is that capitalists determine what gets funding. A socialist state might put economic force behind other scientific endeavors, ones driven by capital are intended to create profit. The profit motive drives innovation instead of the pure ideological pursuit of truth or any other driver.
  
  Correct, capitalism is just a system intended to prioritize capital using markets. Science is a methodology of determining truth. As a method, it is tautologically "perfect" because all failures are to be accounted for by the very methodology. The choices that capitalist systems make and socialist systems would make may be different, but the decision-making process itself could be run scientifically.
  
  This is a fair point. It becomes a matter of which questions we're asking as a society, though. Of course we are not at a stage where capital is the only driving force for science (thank goodness for public funding) but it's not far fetched that we might be, and a world where questions are only asked in the context of profit generation (and unsatisfying answers are suppressed) is a dystopian world indeed.
  It's fair to say capitalism is having a negative impact on science (e.g. journals) but it's not as dire as what's suggested
- Also statement A isn't the truth either. It's a highly exaggerated belief.
  "science is good" turns to "science is pure truth and always right"
  When actually science can be manipulated because humans are, well, humans. It shouldn't be taken as always 100% fact.

165 comments