Hm. I'll say that I don't actually think that is the case where science is concerned.
Actually, I was thinking of pop science books specifically. They have an agenda by definition, and it's usually an incredibly socially contextual one. Pop science books aren't actually doing science, they're doing narrative.
(Mind you, I am frequently suspicious of the faith some scientists of my acquaintance have that their methods will account for all messy human motivation biases and blindspots. But the good ones know this cannot be true, and know how to live with it and think through it.)
BTW, don't read The Poisoner's Handbook, speaking of pop science (or, well, science history). It's driving me quietly bonkers; you'd have to throw it at things.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-19 02:05 am (UTC)Actually, I was thinking of pop science books specifically. They have an agenda by definition, and it's usually an incredibly socially contextual one. Pop science books aren't actually doing science, they're doing narrative.
(Mind you, I am frequently suspicious of the faith some scientists of my acquaintance have that their methods will account for all messy human motivation biases and blindspots. But the good ones know this cannot be true, and know how to live with it and think through it.)
BTW, don't read The Poisoner's Handbook, speaking of pop science (or, well, science history). It's driving me quietly bonkers; you'd have to throw it at things.