• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    Read some Foucault for an explanation, that’s just being human. You don’t stop being human just because you follow scientific ideals. All human endeavors will follow human dynamics.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      No. Science is the only human effort that specifically defines what human is. If we allow that “sure being human is going to mess up science” then we have failed before we even started.

      I’m really surprised, although this is becoming kind of common so perhaps I shouldn’t be, to see all the comments saying effectively “yeah, so?”

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Science doesn’t define what humans are. Humans are, then science plays catch up to try and define what that even means. Science is a human endeavor, a framework of thought, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it cannot exist without humans thinking, talking about it and doing it.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          So if I ask you to define what a human is, you’re not going to draw at all from any previous scientific studies?

          I doubt it. Not to get too ontological, just saying science (biology, psychology, anthropology) very much do define what human is.

          • svieg@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            For a lot of people, I would think that the answer to “what is a human?” Would be closer to religious and philosophical definitions than scientific ones.