iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Pavel @spavel.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

The tendency to evoke specific aesthetics as a way to whitewash what they are actually doing is shared between tech and a certain political movement but let's not go there for now. Notably, chief hype artists Sam Altman and Elon Musk loooove to evoke not just tech but *science* specifically.

234412

Pavel @spavel.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

(if you think science is value-neutral, then you have not been paying attention at all, and should go read about phrenology, scientific racism, and all that stuff as a primer for the conversation adults are having)

545041

Ma-at @ma-at.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

Also scientific sexism - primarily using male subjects from animals to humans in medical research has wreaked havoc on women’s health.

010

puttin’onthefritz @tylerbranston.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

Science is so laden with bias that just bursts at the seams when you trace it back with Christianity and Platonism. Positioned next to TEK it becomes so clear where and why those biases arise.

000

Pavel @spavel.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

Algorithms are especially valuable for the evocation of science based neutrality, because it's really just math. Silly liberals saying 2+2 isn't 4. This conversation is so Orwellian. Numbers don't actually exist in the world. Quantifying is a thing *we do to something* - and we choose how to do it.

335124

E. Allyn Bloom 🇺🇳🇺🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🇺🇦 @ericallyn.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

I almost suggested that the *scientific method* is value-neutral, but oops, no. *At best*, the scientific method encourages an approximation of neutrality, correcting for the inherent non-neutrality of the participants. But it's implemented by non-neutral parties, so it's a very rough approximation

030

Darius Suplica @dsuplica.bsky.social · 29/04/2025

It's valuable to distinguish science as a method from science as applied. Obviously the questions asked, methods used, etc are biased as a result of the human element. But those are more a flaw of people instead of science itself

110