Science Biases

Systematic distortions that arise from the way science is practiced, institutionalized, and understood. Science Biases include: publication bias (positive results get published, negative results don't); funding bias (research gets funded when it serves interests); confirmation bias in study design; bias toward what's measurable over what's meaningful; bias toward Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic (WEIRD) populations; bias against null results, replication studies, or challenging paradigms. Science Biases don't mean science is wrong—they mean science is human, and humans have biases that shape what gets studied and what gets found.

Science Biases "Why do we know so much about drug effects and so little about nutrition? That's Science Bias—funding goes where profit is. Why do psychology studies use undergrads? That's Science Bias—convenience shapes knowledge. Science biases aren't conspiracies; they're structural. Recognizing them doesn't invalidate science—it makes science better."

by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Science Metabiases

Second-order biases about science—systematic distortions in how we understand, value, and critique scientific practice. Science Metabiases include: treating science as monolithic rather than diverse; assuming scientific consensus is always right; using "science says" as an argument-ender; believing that science is self-correcting in ways that eliminate bias; ignoring the social, historical, and institutional dimensions of science; treating critiques of science as anti-science. Science Metabiases shape public understanding of science and scientists' understanding of themselves.

Science Metabiases "He says 'science proves it' as if science were a unified oracle. That's Science Metabias—treating science as a monolith, not a messy human activity. Science is diverse, contested, evolving. The metabias is thinking 'science' settles arguments when it actually opens inquiries. Science isn't a conclusion; it's a process—and metabias makes us forget that."

by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Philosophy of Science

The branch of philosophy that investigates the foundations, methods, and implications of science. It asks: What is science? How does it work? What makes a theory scientific? How do we confirm or falsify hypotheses? What is the nature of scientific explanation? Is science progressing toward truth? Philosophy of Science examines the assumptions scientists make, the logic of their reasoning, and the implications of their findings. It's not anti-science; it's science's self-reflection—the discipline that keeps science honest by asking questions scientists are too busy to ask. From Popper's falsification to Kuhn's paradigms to Feyerabend's "anything goes," Philosophy of Science reveals that science isn't just data collection—it's a human activity with philosophical foundations.

"Your scientist friend says 'science proves it.' Philosophy of Science asks: proves by what method? Under what paradigm? With what assumptions? Science doesn't just prove things; it operates within frameworks that need examination. Philosophy of Science is what happens when science stops doing and starts thinking about what it's doing."

by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026

Metaphilosophy of Science

The philosophical examination of the philosophy of science itself—the study of how we study science. Metaphilosophy of Science asks meta-questions: What are the methods of philosophy of science? Is it descriptive or normative? How does it relate to history and sociology of science? Is it making progress? What counts as a good theory in philosophy of science? Metaphilosophy of Science is philosophy of science's self-reflection—the discipline that keeps it from becoming dogmatic by forcing it to examine its own assumptions.

"You're debating Kuhn vs. Popper. Metaphilosophy of Science asks: why are these the options? Who decides what counts as a good philosophy of science? How does philosophy of science itself change over time? You're so deep in the debate you haven't asked what the debate is for. Step back—that's metaphilosophy of science."

by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026

Social Sciences of Science

The empirical study of science as a social activity—how scientists actually work, how institutions shape research, how knowledge is produced in communities. Social Sciences of Science uses sociological, anthropological, and historical methods to study science itself: lab life, citation patterns, funding effects, peer review, paradigm shifts. It reveals that science isn't just logic and evidence—it's people, power, and practices. Social Sciences of Science is science studying itself, using social science tools to understand its own social dimensions.

"Science is objective, they say. Social sciences of science asks: then why do funding patterns shape results? Why do prestigious labs get more citations? Why do some findings never replicate? Science is human, and social science shows how. Not to debunk, but to understand."

by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026

Social Sciences of the Scientific Method

The empirical study of how the scientific method is actually practiced—not as an ideal, but as a messy human activity. Social Sciences of the Scientific Method examines how methods vary across disciplines, how they're learned, how they're enforced, how they change. It reveals that "the scientific method" is a textbook ideal; real science uses multiple methods, adapted to context, shaped by community norms. Understanding this helps bridge the gap between philosophy of method and actual practice.

"Your textbook says there's one scientific method. Social sciences of the scientific method says: go look in actual labs—you'll find many methods, adapted, improvised, negotiated. The ideal is neat; the reality is messy. Social science shows you the mess."

by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026

Social Sciences of Epistemology

The empirical study of how knowledge is actually produced, validated, and contested in human communities—not just how it should be. Social Sciences of Epistemology examines knowledge practices across cultures, institutions, and historical periods. It reveals that what counts as knowledge varies, that justification is social, that knowers are always situated. It's epistemology grounded in empirical study of real knowing—not just armchair reflection.

"Epistemology says knowledge requires justification. Social sciences of epistemology asks: justification to whom? By what standards? In what community? Knowledge isn't abstract; it's always knowledge-for-someone, knowledge-in-a-community. Social science shows the 'someone' that philosophy forgets."

by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026