With some justification. The question arises, who has the right to say so? From Alex Berezow at ACSH:
The topic came up on Twitter, the world’s foremost outlet for intellectual discourse. Writer and historian Audra Wolfe, who holds a PhD in the history of science, posted this bizarre tweet:
Actually, no, it hasn’t, no matter what the Bunny’s sign says. The scientific method is designed specifically to root out bias and false assumptions, including political ones. Sure, individual scientists can be political, but the scientific method is not. Its ideological agnosticism is why it works so well. In fact, the self-correcting nature of science means it is the best source of secular knowledge that humankind possesses.
However, Dr. Wolfe’s characterization of science is precisely in line with the historical revisionist, postmodernist view: Science is just one opinion among many. Actually, it’s worse than that. Science is a system of oppression designed by white, heterosexual men. Science should be treated suspiciously. More.
As we’ve said before, the current war on objectivity is a serious threat to science and one that no one seems to want to confront for what it is.
While we’re here, sociologist Steve Fuller thinks that, for a number of historical reasons, ours is an age of Protscience, where groups are developing their own science. One thing about his view, it should be easy to tell in a decade or so if he is right.
See also: Enemies of science? The current war on objectivity is a genuine enemy
Sociologist: How ID foxes can beat Darwinian lions
At NPR: For social justice’s sake, get rid of algebra!
From Scientific American: “we may all be alters—dissociated personalities— of universal consciousness.”
Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself
Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain