On the subject of knowledge systems, I'm also always wanting to pull apart "science" as it is talked about into several aspects that need seperate treatment.
There's Science as an ideal: a way of approaching the world and learning about it. The idealization of observation and questioning, of coming up with theories but being willing to change them as you observe more.
There is Science as a practice: a way of implementing the ideal. Methodologies for observation, theory-building, and testing. The discussion of these methodologies which also seeks to analyze which are effective, how they can be improved, what their limitations are.
There is Science as a body of work. The accumulation of science-as-practiced, where many generations of work have built on each other and continue to analyze and relate to earlier work.
And there is Science as an institution, as an arm of the Academy. Who decides which approaches and perspectives are legitimate? Who does the observation, who pays for it? The academic project has historical roots deeply tied in imperialism: a philosophy of Knowing the world as part of the project of Owning the world.
Science as a body of work is deeply tied up in science as an institution - not because this fundamentally follows from the accumulated practice of science as an ideal, but as a matter of historical fact. This is the body of work we have.
All of these aspects are in conversation with each other - and with realms of life and society outside of "science" specifically. How exactly the ideal of science should be defined, has varied over history. The iterative effects of changes in methodology and philosophy accumulate in the body of work. The changing body of work changes the goals and outlooks of the academy. These aspects of science are not separable. But neither are they synonymous.
Very often, I see critiques of science-as-practiced rebutted with appeals to the legacy and legitimacy of science-as-institution. Meanwhile, critiques of science-as-institution are brushed off with appeals to science-as-ideal.
To understand the body of knowledge we have constructed, where it comes from and how it operates, we have to be able to address these aspects as distinct, and to build language of analysis for them individually, and for how they interact.
pixelskylines
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
germansingergirl
snowghoul
yousharknotpass
