Why trust science by https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w Oreskes 49-54 en-us 2022-01-11 13:13:31 UTC 2025-10-30 15:27:25 UTC hello@padlet.com Thesis ndamon23 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1998860867 Although, scientists may not agree on the social turning in science studies. Social activity is claimed as irrational and would influence our perspectives and make science more opinionated. However, suggesting the standpoint epistemology and ceteris paribus will simplify out every perspective and develop the objective knowledge to increase the diversity of knowledge-seeking communities. Social account solves the problem of bias and subjective preferences into scientific inquiry and finds scientific rationality from feminism. "science corrects itself, but that scientists correct each other through social processes that constitute "transformative interrogation"(Oreskes 51). "Values are not incompatible with objectivity, but objectivity [emerges] as a function of community practices rather than as an attitude of individual researches"( Oreskes 52).]]> 2022-01-18 19:45:36 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1998860867 abeohar233_1 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1998862270 Thesis: A diverse array of identities and backgrounds will expand our scientific knowledge by allowing for different voices to disprove/prove scientific discoveries, and eliminating studies that are not objective or are predicated on bigoted misconceptions. 

"Harding argued that the objectivity practiced by most scientific communities was weak, because of the characteristic homogeneity of those communities. The perspective of women, people of color, the working classes, and many others were lacking, and the consequences were plain to see when one considered the obvious sexism, racism, and class bias of many past scientific theories." (50)

"This perspective reinforces Harding's position that objectivity is not a matter of either/or. but of degree. The greater the diversity and openness of a community and the stronger its protocols for supporting free and open debate, the greater the degree of objectivity it may be able to achieve as individual biases and background assumptions are "outdated", as where, by the community. (53) ]]> 2022-01-18 19:46:23 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1998862270 Why Trust Science? 49-54 Thesis rcustodio22 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1998982486 In pages 49-54 of Why Trust Science? Naomi Oreskes argues that science has its flaws and it cannot completely be objective, but that by the collective effort and inclusion of all ranging bodies - ceteris paribus - we can bring more perspectives and knowledge seeking people into a more diverse community where everyone is contributing and questioning one another in order to strengthen and improve science overall. 

“The greater the diversity and openness of a community and the stronger its protocols for supporting free and open debate, the greater the degree of objectivity it may be able to achieve as individual biases and background assumptions are ‘outed,’ as it were, by the community.” (53)

“Diversity does not heal all epistemic ills, but ceteris paribus a diverse community that embraces criticism is more likely to detect and correct error than a homogenous and self-satisfied one.” (54)

]]> 2022-01-18 20:50:19 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1998982486 Anthony acalfa232 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999407511 Throughout the excerpt, Oreskes seemed to have been discussing about a very specific topic. The idea that learning how the world around us works requires people of all different sorts seems to have a reoccurring message. Some points where this is evident is, “when, for instance, background assumptions are shared by all members of a community, they acquire an invisibility that renders them unavailable for criticism” and “the Best way to develop objective knowledge is to increase the diversity of knowledge seeking communities.”]]> 2022-01-19 02:59:00 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999407511 Oreske's Thesis psilva232_1 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999442058 The thesis advanced by Oreskes in this section is that science is very much a social activity, so to provide the most objective scientific conclusions, the social community the experiments are conducted and reviewed in must me diverse. Oreskes supports her thesis by quoting philosopher Helen Longino, who wrote "From all this it follows again that the greater the number of different points of view included in a given community, the more likely it is that its scientific practice will be objective... [and] it will result in descriptions and explanations of natural processes that are more reliable... than would otherwise be the case"(54). Oreskes also backs up her claim by mentioning Sandra Harding's argument in her book The Science Question in Feminism: "Harding argued that the objectivity practiced by most scientific communities was weak, because of the characteristic homogeneity of these communities. The perspectives of women, people of color, the working classes, and many others were lacking, and the consequences were plain to see when one considered the obvious sexism, racism, and class bias of many past scientific theories"(51).]]> 2022-01-19 03:27:45 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999442058 Thesis + quotes mcastanon231_1 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999462115 Objective scientific rationale can be collectively achieved by a larger heterogeneity in the scientific community, as subjective elements can be challenged by others to minimize the influence of subjective preferences.
"Objectivity is likely to be maximized when there are recognized and robust avenues for criticism, such as peer review; when the community is open, non-defensive, and responsive to criticism, and when the community is sufficiently diverse that a broad range of views can be developed, heard, and appropriately considered" (p. 53).
"When...background assumptions are shared by all members of a community, they acquire an invisibility that renders them unavailable for criticism" (p. 53).]]> 2022-01-19 03:44:23 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999462115 isabellamateo https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999474638 Thesis: For science to be objective and definitive, an increase in diversity is needed because an assortment of goups will allow for different perspectives on discussion topics. 

quotes: "Our personal experiences ... than a less diverse one." (page 50)

"... a diverse community ... self-satisfied one." (page 54)]]> 2022-01-19 03:54:39 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999474638 Sophia Stoute sstoute23 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999539307 Thesis: The acceptance of women and people of color into the scientific community allowed these groups to strengthen science by challenging its objectivity - through their examination- allowing science to be analyzed by a multitude of perspectives. 
Quote #1: "Harding mobilized the concept of standpoint epistemology—the idea
that how we view matters depends to a great extent on our social position (or, colloquially, that where we stand depends on where we sit)—to argue that greater diversity could make science stronger. Our personal experiences—of wealth or poverty, privilege or disadvantage, maleness or femaleness, heteronormativity or queerness, disability or able- bodiedness—cannot but influence our perspectives on and interpretations of the
world (pg. 50)" 
Quote #2: "The perspectives of women,people of color, the working classes, and many others were lacking, and the consequences were plain to see when one considered the obvious sexism, racism, and class bias of many past scientific theories(pg.51)" ]]> 2022-01-19 04:45:58 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999539307 rachel hodes. The thesis of this passage was to make the reader see how narrow-minded science can be even though it’s considered one of the most progressive forms of education. Early science depicts a lot of inclusivity and as a result, scientific progress and findings slowed. However, once more people were allowed to share their ideas and conduct lab work, the diversity of scientific research we had access to increased. Oreskes says that science is the critical component in so many ways, but it must include a community of scientists who want to hear from others and expand their minds. Additionally, we take note of the fact that POC is primarily discriminated against in these situations. Still, we need to let their voices be heard, or else we risk limited knowledge and a progressive loss society. 1. “Objectivity is not a matter of either/or, but of degree. The greater the diversity and openness of a community and the stronger its protocols for supporting free and open debate, the greater the degree of objectivity it may be able to achieve as individual biases and background assumptions are “outed”, as it were, by the community. Put it another way: objectivity is likely to be maximized when there are recognized and robust avenues for criticism, such as perr review, when the community is open, non-defensive, and responsive to criticism, and when the community is sufficiently diverse that a broad range of views can be developed, heard, and appropriately considered,” (53). 2.“Diversity does not heal all epistemic ills, but ceteris paribus a diverse community that embraces criticism is more likely to detect and correct error than a homogeneous and self-satisfied,” (54). https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999601159 2022-01-19 05:36:43 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/1999601159 gmurdocco232_1 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/2001496325 Thesis: Oreskes argues that the best way to ensure the objectivity of science is not to focus on individual bias among researchers, but rather to expand the diversity of the scientific community so different voices and perspectives can be heard and challenged. By including people of all sexes, races, sexualities, classes, and abilities, the science will be debated in a large, diverse group of people, and scientists who include their bias in their research will be outed and disregarded to protect the objectivity of science.

"The greater the diversity and openness of a community and the stronger its protocols for supporting free and open debate, the greater the degree of objectivity it may be able to achieve as individual biases and background assumptions are "outed," ..." (53)

"Harding mobilized the concept of standpoint epistemology- the idea that how we view matters depends to a great extent on our social position...to argue that greater diversity could make science stronger." (50)]]> 2022-01-19 21:18:11 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/2001496325 Epistemology is what gives science truth. mpacheco221 https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/2001578880 Naomi Oreskes has always wanted more out of science; she has not felt like it truly is objective and rational because of who commands science and who sets the rules of the social and physical world. After reading the works of Sandea Harding and Helen Longino, she has come to the conclusion that adding a diverse set of scientists with different backgrounds and histories to evaluate unknown events in the world and re-evaluate misinformed and biased existing theories, that science can acheive a more holistic objectiveness by wiping out assumptions and prejudices of a homogeneous group (of scientists). "It is through the give and take of ideas--the challenging, the questioning, the adjusting and amending--that scientists integrate their colleagues' work, offer up criticisms, and contribute to the growth of warranted knowledge" (52). "Transformative interrogation can empower us to decide whether those background assumptions are, in a given context, appropriate and helpful or inappropriate and unhelpful" (54).]]> 2022-01-19 22:23:45 UTC https://padlet.com/konenp2/tfaokww042iyfn2w/wish/2001578880