Search Results
7/7/2025, 11:08:12 PM
>>17823214
>analyzing social institutions behind science does not necessarily mean that you are trying to discount all of science.
But he never gives any positive examples, it's always negative, always skepticism, always cynicism. There's that lack of nuance. However, once you add nuance: what do you get? That some information can be culturally biased? That sometimes power can influence things? He isn't saying anything particularly ground breaking.
>like i said here too >>17823157
it is a misconception to interpret foucault as an anti-realist.
The most charitable reading between the lines: is that he and others think that the story given to us by historians, scientists, etc and cultural and political institutions are fundamentally biased, and its our job as sociologists to root through the lies, and then presumably build something new and positive (which they never did, it was just more negativity, skepticism, and deconstruction). Queer theory is entirely negative, holding no positive theory about sexuality and in fact rejecting that its even possible.
But science and scholarship are the two best tools we have, and there's literally nothing better. The answer to poor scholarship is to make better scholarship.
if you deny the tools to analyze the world, you make ultimate reality this closed off world outside ourselves that we can never access. Functionally that's very close to anti-realism. There is a real world, but our systems are so biased that we can never access them.
>analyzing social institutions behind science does not necessarily mean that you are trying to discount all of science.
But he never gives any positive examples, it's always negative, always skepticism, always cynicism. There's that lack of nuance. However, once you add nuance: what do you get? That some information can be culturally biased? That sometimes power can influence things? He isn't saying anything particularly ground breaking.
>like i said here too >>17823157
it is a misconception to interpret foucault as an anti-realist.
The most charitable reading between the lines: is that he and others think that the story given to us by historians, scientists, etc and cultural and political institutions are fundamentally biased, and its our job as sociologists to root through the lies, and then presumably build something new and positive (which they never did, it was just more negativity, skepticism, and deconstruction). Queer theory is entirely negative, holding no positive theory about sexuality and in fact rejecting that its even possible.
But science and scholarship are the two best tools we have, and there's literally nothing better. The answer to poor scholarship is to make better scholarship.
if you deny the tools to analyze the world, you make ultimate reality this closed off world outside ourselves that we can never access. Functionally that's very close to anti-realism. There is a real world, but our systems are so biased that we can never access them.
Page 1