By Naomi Orestes

Role of empirical evidence not as determinable as we thought. Does not mean there is not external reality. Not all to be defined. Evidence alone does not account for conclusions. Both social and empirical factors influence despising. Can’t determine which more important in any one case. A social activity.

Science doesn’t have a single process but is a community of experts making decisions for both empirical and social using diverse methods. Derive claims from process of collective scrutiny of claims. Scientists are our designated expert to tell us about the world. We trust other experts on a daily basis, teachers, bakers, plumbers, tech, shoe salesman. Most of us do trust scientist except for a few areas of political and financial contention. Important to know that understand the motives of all making claims. Do they have knowledge of the area? What are their motivations? Who pays?

Of course, scientific knowledge is relative. Is a strength not a criticism. Relative knowledge often said to not be objective. Not the right comparison. Relative knowledge contrast with objectivity but absolute knowledge, which not attainable. All knowledge is relative. Determine If particular knowledge more or less objective. How objective is the K? How many voices involved? What interests of those voices? Was it inclusive voices? Countries, Cultures, etc? If robust process with open process and wide range of viewers, about best we can expect.

Bruno LaTour shows that variance in sci practice that can’t say objective process help up by review. Too varied to have any consistency. More important what they do rather than say. No single sci method. No positive k.

Feminist critique provided critical view. Stated in 60s, how can be objective when exclude half of people? How end up embedding prejudice, race, class, gender, class? Not attacking but improving. Bring more views in. Objectivity is a social accomplishment. One can’t be. Many get much closer. Standpoint epistemology, where we stand depends on where we sit. Sci too narrow. Increases voices. Balance bias

Transformative question is how science corrects itself. Ask questions. Obj depends on depth and scope of interrogation in the community. Obj part of communal activity not individual attitudes or practices. String review. Good questions in open, diverse community. Need to explain what we know as well as how e know. Ack the social influence not a problem (it’s real) as much as oath to trust and solution. Peer review Also trust many communities not healthy, incentives wrong.

Trust not in individual but in social process that rigorously vets claims. Stay open to other sources of k. Not fight economically motivates attacks on sci with more data but exposing the political and economic interests at steak. We should be clear what our motives are and what are those of others.