Using institutional science as the sole arbiter of truth, dismissing all other knowledge systems as illegitimate. Often involves appeals to “peer review” or “consensus” to shut down questions about bias or funding.
Empirical Domination
Claiming that only observable, measurable data counts as real knowledge. Rejects inner experiences, systemic patterns, or qualitative nuance as unscientific.
Example: “You can’t prove trauma with a ruler, so it doesn’t exist.”
Empirical Domination
Claiming that only observable, measurable data counts as real knowledge. Rejects inner experiences, systemic patterns, or qualitative nuance as unscientific.
Example: “You can’t prove trauma with a ruler, so it doesn’t exist.”
Scientific Domination Example: “Your ancestral farming knowledge is anecdotal; our lab study says otherwise.”
Epistemological Domination
Imposing one culture’s criteria for justified belief onto everyone else. What counts as evidence, reason, or proof is decided by the dominant group, making alternative ways of knowing invisible.
Example: A court rejecting oral tradition because it’s not written down.
Methodological Domination
Elevating a single research method (e.g., RCTs, statistics) as the only valid approach, while ridiculing interviews, case studies, or participatory observation as unscientific.
Example: “You didn’t use a control group? Then your data means nothing.”
Logical Domination
Using formal logic as a weapon to invalidate non-linear, metaphorical, or dialectical thinking. Assumes Aristotelian logic is universal, ignoring that other reasoning systems exist.
Example: “Your argument contains a contradiction, therefore everything you feel is false.”
Rational Domination
Reducing all decision-making to instrumental cost-benefit analysis, treating efficiency as the highest good. Dismisses ethical, emotional, or aesthetic reasoning as irrational noise.
Example: Firing 500 workers is rational because stock price went up.
Epistemological Domination
Imposing one culture’s criteria for justified belief onto everyone else. What counts as evidence, reason, or proof is decided by the dominant group, making alternative ways of knowing invisible.
Example: A court rejecting oral tradition because it’s not written down.
Methodological Domination
Elevating a single research method (e.g., RCTs, statistics) as the only valid approach, while ridiculing interviews, case studies, or participatory observation as unscientific.
Example: “You didn’t use a control group? Then your data means nothing.”
Logical Domination
Using formal logic as a weapon to invalidate non-linear, metaphorical, or dialectical thinking. Assumes Aristotelian logic is universal, ignoring that other reasoning systems exist.
Example: “Your argument contains a contradiction, therefore everything you feel is false.”
Rational Domination
Reducing all decision-making to instrumental cost-benefit analysis, treating efficiency as the highest good. Dismisses ethical, emotional, or aesthetic reasoning as irrational noise.
Example: Firing 500 workers is rational because stock price went up.
by Abzugal April 8, 2026
Get the Scientific Domination mug."The scientists were Scientifying the creature"
by SVDuh September 1, 2025
Get the Scientifying mug.A random word to be used in place of a real branch of stem to sound more intellectual or make a false idea sound more believable.
by The classiest soap December 3, 2025
Get the Scienlithic mug.Scientific discrimination, also referred to as evidence-based discrimination, scientific intolerance, scientific bigotry, evidence-based bigotry, scientific prejudice, evidence-based violence, and/or evidence-based violence, currently refers to a practice in online scientific communities, groups, and niches that consists of the selective use of science and evidence to justify discrimination, intolerance, prejudice, and violence against dissidents, people and groups with whom they disagree, or simply people who think differently or whose practices are deemed "unscientific," "relativistic," "postmodernist," "pseudoscientific," "parascientific," and the like. It is a fairly common practice in science communication groups and communities, and in places like popular social media platforms and YouTube video comments.
Previously, scientific discrimination was used to refer to scientific racism and discrimination against groups (women, minorities) within science itself, but today it is accepted as consensus that scientific discrimination also refers to the selective use of science and scientific evidence to justify discrimination, intolerance, prejudice, and related violence against dissident groups or groups with which those concerned disagree, such as religious people, spiritual people, people with spiritual experiences, theists, neurodivergent people, autistic people, political dissidents in Western countries, political dissidents in liberal democracies, and the like, as well as systemic violence against dissident practices such as psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, transpersonal psychology, humanistic psychology, holistic therapy, Marxism, socialism, communism, linguistic relativism, neuropsychorelativism, epistemological relativism, scientific relativism, critical theory, decolonial theory, queer theory, Voidpunk theory, Voidborne/Voidling theory, leftist theories, dynamic systems, complex systems, chaotic systems, and the like. In addition to using terms such as "relativist," "postmodernist," "denialist," "obscurantist," "delusional," "schizophrenic," "psychotic," "nonsense," "psychononsense," "charlatan," "pseudoscience," "pseudo-shaming," and the like to silence criticism and dissenting thought, even when they have sources and evidence to support them.
by AbzuInExile January 24, 2026
Get the Scientific discrimination mug.The belief that the entities, laws, and structures described by successful scientific theories (like electrons, natural selection, or gravitational waves) are real, mind-independent features of the world, and that science progressively uncovers this objective truth. Theories may change, but they converge on an accurate description of reality "as it is."
Example: A scientific-epistemological realism believes that DNA existed and carried genetic information long before humans discovered it. The shift from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian relativity wasn't a change of arbitrary stories, but a closer approximation to the actual fabric of spacetime. When physicists talk about the Higgs boson, they're not just describing a useful calculation tool; they believe it's a real particle their instruments actually detected.
by Abzugal January 24, 2026
Get the Scientific-Epistemological Realism mug.The view that scientific knowledge is not a discovery of a pre-existing reality, but a construction deeply influenced by social, cultural, and historical contexts. Scientific "facts" and even what counts as good evidence are relative to the prevailing paradigm, worldview, or community of scientists. Truth is made, not found.
Example: Thomas Kuhn's concept of "paradigm shifts" is a classic expression of Scientific-Epistemological Relativism. Before and after the Copernican Revolution, scientists lived in different intellectual worlds with different facts. A scientific-epistemological relativist argues that the "objective" evidence was interpreted through incompatible frameworks. Similarly, modern debates (like over certain sociological theories) often involve clashes between groups with fundamentally different epistemological standards for what constitutes valid evidence.
by Abzugal January 24, 2026
Get the Scientific-Epistemological Relativism mug.The idea that the development of scientific knowledge is not a free, rational pursuit of truth, but is determined by external, non-scientific forces. These can be economic (funding interests), ideological (political or religious dogma), technological (what tools are available), or social (power structures within institutions). Science is steered by its environment.
Example: The history of tobacco research, where corporate funding deterministically shaped the questions asked and the conclusions highlighted for decades, is a blunt case. More subtly, a scientific-epistemological determinism might argue that the current focus on AI and quantum computing is less about the "pure" logic of scientific progress and more determined by geopolitical competition and massive capital investment. Which diseases get researched is heavily determined by pharmaceutical profit potential, not just by global health burden.
by Abzugal January 24, 2026
Get the Scientific-Epistemological Determinism mug.