Scientific Contextualism

The application of contextualism to scientific knowledge—the view that scientific claims are always context-dependent, that what counts as a good experiment, a valid result, a sound theory varies with scientific context. Scientific Contextualism doesn't deny that science produces reliable knowledge; it just insists that this knowledge is always knowledge-for-a-particular-purpose, knowledge-under-particular-conditions, knowledge-within-a-particular-framework. Different scientific contexts produce different knowledge; none produces knowledge for all contexts. Scientific Contextualism is the philosophy of scientific pluralism, of the recognition that science is not one thing but many, each valid in its context.

Example: "He'd thought science was universal—same methods, same standards, same truths everywhere. Scientific Contextualism showed him otherwise: what counted as good evidence in physics didn't work in ecology; what was valid in the lab failed in the field. Science wasn't one thing; it was many, each valid in its context. He stopped looking for universal method and started learning local contexts."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Law of Scientific Privilege

The principle that certain scientific methods, institutions, and knowledge systems are granted unearned authority—privileged not because they're inherently superior but because they're associated with dominant power structures. The Law of Scientific Privilege argues that science is not neutral: Western science is privileged over indigenous knowledge, quantitative methods over qualitative, funded research over community inquiry. This privilege shapes what counts as knowledge, who gets to produce it, and who benefits. The law doesn't say privileged science is wrong; it says we should examine why it's privileged, what interests it serves, and what's excluded.

Example: "She'd been taught that science was simply the best way to know things. The Law of Scientific Privilege showed her otherwise: this science was privileged because it came from wealthy nations, because it served corporate interests, because it was backed by state power. Other ways of knowing existed, but they were marginalized. She started asking who benefited from her science's dominance."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Scientific Privilege

The systematic elaboration of scientific privilege as a framework for understanding the politics of knowledge. The Theory of Scientific Privilege argues that science is not a neutral pursuit of truth but a field of power—that certain scientific methods, institutions, and knowledge systems are privileged, others marginalized, and that this privilege reflects social hierarchies, not epistemic superiority. It traces how Western science became dominant, how it was used to justify exploitation and exclusion, how other knowledge systems were suppressed. It doesn't reject science; it calls for examining its privilege and opening space for other ways of knowing. The Theory of Scientific Privilege is the foundation of epistemic decolonization.

Example: "She'd believed science was simply the best way to know things—objective, universal, true. The Theory of Scientific Privilege showed her otherwise: science had a politics, a history, a relationship to power. Western science was privileged because of empire, not because it was better. She started learning from other knowledge systems, other ways of knowing, other truths."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Scientifically Privileged Position

A position within scientific discourse that is granted unearned authority—not because its evidence is stronger but because it's associated with dominant institutions, funders, or research traditions. A scientifically privileged position gets funded, published, and cited; its findings are reported as news; its experts are invited to panels. Alternative positions struggle for recognition, dismissed as fringe or pseudoscience regardless of their merits. The scientifically privileged position doesn't have to prove itself harder; it's already trusted. This privilege shapes what counts as science, what questions get asked, what answers are accepted.

Scientifically Privileged Position Example: "Her research, done in community with marginalized populations, was dismissed as 'not rigorous.' His research, funded by a pharmaceutical company, published in top journals, was taken as gospel. The scientifically privileged position wasn't better; it was just privileged. She kept working, knowing that recognition might never come."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Scientific Ivory Tower

An institution, community, or mindset where science is treated as the exclusive domain of an elite—where certain methods are privileged and others dismissed, where scientific standards are set by those inside the tower and imposed on those outside. The Scientific Ivory Tower mistakes its local practices for universal ones, its preferred methods for the only path to knowledge. It produces science that works within the tower but fails to address the needs of those outside. The Scientific Ivory Tower is the home of the academic who can't communicate with the public, the researcher whose work never leaves the lab, the discipline that has become irrelevant to the world it claims to study.

Scientific Ivory Tower Example: "The research institute was a scientific ivory tower—cutting-edge work, brilliant minds, zero impact. Their papers were cited by each other; their findings never reached the public. The tower kept them pure and irrelevant. Outside, people struggled with problems the tower could solve—if it ever looked down."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Scientific Paradigms

The theory, associated with Thomas Kuhn, that science progresses not through steady accumulation of knowledge but through paradigm shifts—fundamental changes in the frameworks within which science operates. A paradigm is a whole worldview: assumptions, methods, standards, exemplars. Normal science works within a paradigm; revolutionary science breaks it. The Theory of Scientific Paradigms explains why science is not simply cumulative, why old theories are not simply absorbed into new ones, why scientific change is often resisted and traumatic. It's the theory that science is human, historical, and revolutionary—not a smooth march to truth but a series of ruptures.

Example: "He'd thought science just added knowledge over time, like building a wall brick by brick. The Theory of Scientific Paradigms showed him otherwise: science was more like a series of earthquakes—old structures collapsed, new ones rose, and the landscape was permanently changed. The bricks didn't just accumulate; they were reshuffled, remade, sometimes discarded."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Law of Scientific Paradigms

The principle that science operates within paradigms—that scientific knowledge is always knowledge-within-a-framework, that paradigms shape what questions are asked, what methods are used, what counts as evidence. The Law of Scientific Paradigms, derived from Kuhn's work, argues that science is not a simple accumulation of facts but a series of paradigm-governed activities. Normal science works within a paradigm; revolutionary science breaks it. Paradigms are incommensurable—they can't be directly compared because they define the world differently. The law doesn't say science is irrational; it says science is historical, and that understanding science means understanding its paradigms.

Example: "He'd thought science just discovered facts, one after another. The Law of Scientific Paradigms showed him otherwise: facts were always facts-within-a-paradigm. When paradigms shifted, facts shifted too. What was true in Newton's paradigm wasn't false in Einstein's—it was differently true. Science wasn't a straight line; it was a series of leaps."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026