The 'all' was really directed at the other two, if you look at their conversations they actually have said this, so i'm sorry for roping you in on that word, it was a generalisation for the group supporting 'the affects of social factors on science'
So what you're saying, to round it up, is that no scientific matters or principals are REALLY affected by these social factors? Given that you agree that my examples aren't (and that I could give 1000 more), and that the only examples that MIGHT have had some sort of bearing on the social factors are aged and misconceived, and were wrong even in their time?
As for being able to 'see past science' etc, because of the above paragraph you're more or less admitting that you will stubbornly believe something despite there being no examples or ideas to base it on. THAT is the difference - as soon as you give me some examples that anything scientific is affected by these factors, I will be happy to step down from my argument - I've even had a go at finding some examples just so I can see it from you're point of view - don't assume that just because I'm not jumping on your band wagon, and i'm standing passionately for what is the only thing with any evidence - the scientific method.
Its the same reason that I don't believe in an abrahamic god, because thres not a scrap of evidence for his case, and any supposed evidence is completely falsified. Just like crystal healing, reiki, colour therapy, atlantis etc. I'm no being stubborn, I'm merely waiting for the evidence to arrive.
I genuinely have no idea whether or not you're referring to me and I have even less idea who the other person is. As far as I'm aware I've never said that, although now that it's said I'm not sure I completely disagree.
Considering that science and philosophy started out as almost the same sublject, it's surprising how much you rely on concrete evidence and how little you consider other sources of information especially on this topic, which is more philosophical than scientific. I don't expect you to join our 'bandwagon', just to accept that other people might sometimes be right and you might occasionally be wrong.
Why was the witch-hunting argument dismissed? The point is that if science is affected by the society around it, it would be hard to tell at the time because no comparison is available. You'll probably say that this is convenient too, but it's what I think.
I've already said why the witch-hunts aren't a good example, so you can read it again if you like - my fingers are knackered!
@Yes of course philosophy started out but some people would tell you that science is born of THEOLOGY which is a horrendous though. My subject (physics) was even up until about 40 years ago generally called "natural philosophy".
There can always by hypotheses and conjectures etc, but theres not a true scientist who would say something IS true if there is no evidence. But even philosophising that, say, theres a dragon at the centre of the sun, we can pool together the evidence supporting and opposing it. Science has grown up since the witch hunts, which as I've said, were absolutely evil and biased based on generally no evidence. It wasn't science as we know it now, or as it was known then - there were scientists at that time of the world as well, the point is it was the clergy and the judges that did the hunting, not scientists acting on scientific principal. If Newton had just said "this is probably gravity and I'm gonna guess its due to magic" it wouldn't have been accepted - in fact, he'd probably be tried as a witch!
