• saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.

    The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.

    Edit: Sorry, I’m drunk af, so probably you are right…maybe… At least in my mind, I’m just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.

    • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but. The first statement is not true because it’s nonsensical. There is no universally objective truth; it is still filtered through our relativistic perceptions of reality which are fabrications of our mind created from the raw abstractions of the data we perceive.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Pure objective truths exist, but humans are not objective creatures so our process of finding those objective truths is flawed at times.