For sure, but it’s important to keep in mind in fields with large financial interests.

Medicine especially. Most studies claiming Cealiac disease (gluten allergy) was not real before it was conclusively proven to be legitimate were funded by bread companies. You won’t believe the number of studies funded by insurance companies trying to show that certain diseases aren’t really disabling, (even though they really are).

The entire thing is an edgy strawman. Honest practitioners obviously take seriously the need to understand and articulate the limits of empiricism, and are hostile towards those who abuse the public trust placed in scientific authority. It would honestlt be great if we could do the same with our critiques of capitalism.

ignoring the other examples you've been given: it absolutely does even when it goes well. The scientific method is literally based on "other people must change and refine this, one person's work is not immutable nor should be taken as gospel"

Also what science is has changed. Science used to be natural philosophy and thus was combined with other non-scientific (to us) disciplines. Social sciences have only been around 200 years tops.

Some would debate that applied mathematics is science, others would say all sociology isn't science.

But it does. Cigarettes were healthy and climate change didn't exist 50 years ago

Am scientist (well, was, before career change), can confirm. Fuck dogmatic scientists, they're worse than regular dogmatists because they've been given many opportunities to know better.

Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.

One cannot really argue that science as practiced is very effective at certain things but it is also extremely far from being objective in practice. Especially the further you stray from simple physical systems.

Also like I never saw someone formulate a hypothesis in any sort of formal sense haha.

Ideally, absolutely. That’s what makes the hallmarks of a great scientist.

In practice, institutionalized science can be just as dogmatic and closed-minded as some of the worst religions.

I have had advisors/coworkers/management straight up ignore certain evidence because it didn’t fit their preconceived views of what the results “should be”. This doesn’t make the process of science objective anymore when people are crafting experiments in ways to fit their views, or cherry picking data that conforms to their views.

And you would be surprised at how often this happens in very high-stakes science industries (people’s lives are at stake). It’s fucking disgusting, and extremely dangerous.

Yet, it's not as simple as "scientists are under capitalists' interests", but "the ideologies within capitalism permeate the way we do science". A common example is how we measure functionality (and therefore pathology itself) in medicine.

Look, the only thing in the world which hasn't been corrupted by capitalism is OP's brain, which happens to be in a jar, on a shelf, owned by an evil demon, who lives in a hole at the bottom of the sea. Just be thankful that the capitalists have not figured out how to harness this phenomenological power yet.

If you’d like to read into this I recommend these books.

1. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn

2. “Science as Social Knowledge” by Helen Longino

3. “The Politics of Science” by David Politzer

4. “The Science Industry” by Philip Mirowski

5. “The Commodification of Science: A Critical Perspective” by various authors

An example of why this matters would be that research claiming ME was psychological was heavily funded, by both governments and insurance companies because it meant that they didn’t have to spend money on people disabled with ME. No effort was made to look at possible biological causes. Only a couple decades later, we now know it is a neuroimmune disease. But since insurers and government don’t benefit from that fact, it took decades to show and disprove the mountain of research claiming it is psychological. This meant thousands of people died from the disease or were in severe poverty.

Took like maybe 5 minutes of searching, but the artist is Bro Aniki

does tankie just mean "critiques capitalism" now?

This is tankie? It seems just communist.

I’m an anarchist who despises authoritairian tankies.

This is just critical theory, and meta science. Both of which are legitimate fields.

Neil DeGrass Tyson rails femboy doomers from behind while debating science or something idk.

Some kind of commie drivel that’s literally incomprehensible since the last nail in the coffin of scientific Marxism in the 70s

You can even see identity politics held at the gunpoint to make it more appealing to minorities though no one knows how those matters relate to any of this