There still exists non-partisan sources on scientific matters that have been expressly politicized? The peer review process exists largely to screen for political orthodoxy. Feel free to disregard all claims on the matter; that is mostly what I do at this point, except my null hypothesis is always against the regime. I also assume that somewhere in the field of biology, and anything softer, inductive logic based on empirical evidence(science, the non religious version) ceases to be useful, as it is too abstracted from hard measurements of physical reality.
If you're talking "Environmental Science", Psychological, Ecology (arguably), Sociology, or even fucking Psychiatry, sure, but I can assure you, "hard" biology VERY MUCH still relies on empirical evidence and inductive logic. We just have to wrap it in layman's terms for both the plebs and the politicians...
That's why I used the caveat of somewhere in (the very large field of) biology. Not sure where the line is exactly, but it's somewhere around there that things start to fall apart.
Also, "science communications" (my specific area of interest) gets a bit "woo"-like, at times, because we have to deal/communicate with normies, and make the science "interesting" and "accessible"...
Also kids. Kids don't care about "empiricism". They just wanna see cool shit/shit get blown up/catch fire, etc... As I'm sure you're probably aware.
Environmental science. Environmental science is the line you are looking for...
Debatably ecology. But environmental science is where the "woo" comes in...
Source: my ex studied environmental science, and I had to do some subjects in that area, too. "Introduction to Environmental Sustainability" was peak, compulsory, politicised "woo"... :-/
There still exists non-partisan sources on scientific matters that have been expressly politicized? The peer review process exists largely to screen for political orthodoxy. Feel free to disregard all claims on the matter; that is mostly what I do at this point, except my null hypothesis is always against the regime. I also assume that somewhere in the field of biology, and anything softer, inductive logic based on empirical evidence(science, the non religious version) ceases to be useful, as it is too abstracted from hard measurements of physical reality.
(Literal) Biologist here... That ain't quite it.
If you're talking "Environmental Science", Psychological, Ecology (arguably), Sociology, or even fucking Psychiatry, sure, but I can assure you, "hard" biology VERY MUCH still relies on empirical evidence and inductive logic. We just have to wrap it in layman's terms for both the plebs and the politicians...
Don't diss biology too hard, bruh...
That's why I used the caveat of somewhere in (the very large field of) biology. Not sure where the line is exactly, but it's somewhere around there that things start to fall apart.
Also, "science communications" (my specific area of interest) gets a bit "woo"-like, at times, because we have to deal/communicate with normies, and make the science "interesting" and "accessible"...
Also kids. Kids don't care about "empiricism". They just wanna see cool shit/shit get blown up/catch fire, etc... As I'm sure you're probably aware.
Environmental science. Environmental science is the line you are looking for... Debatably ecology. But environmental science is where the "woo" comes in...
Source: my ex studied environmental science, and I had to do some subjects in that area, too. "Introduction to Environmental Sustainability" was peak, compulsory, politicised "woo"... :-/
Same for me, though I try to err on the safe side.