I know right? It baffles me how transphobes use "science" to be transphobic, like Sir/Ma'am, where in the chromosomes is it written "woman" or "man" or any of the stereotypes attached to those words. We made that shit up, we looked at what was there and then added meaning to it that wasn't there. We interpreted the data according to our current age's biases. Sure those wiggly things usually determine the parts you're born with, but where in those parts is it written that women are soft and belong in the kitchen?

If you were to do some unethical science you can even add/block hormones that go into the fetus during its development for it to develop bits that it wouldn't normally. Hell, you can do that well after birth and new features will develop because human bodies are rather "customisable"

sorry rant over, I don't often get to talk about this from this perspective because getting into the intricacies of subjectivity of science in regards to how human beings and our languages are flawed is a bit too advanced for the average bigot

Extremely subjective creatures, many of which believe they're always right (including many "scientists").

But yeah, you're right, the reality is somewhere between the two extremes of the meme. Although we might also want to have a conversation about what "pure objectivity and truth" means.

Even if we were beings of implacable logic, there would also be the issue that we aren't omniscient. We are never going to reach the full truth of everything because we aren't going to be able to gather all the data.

considering the political skew on lemmy i think this is more an admonition of capitalism than of science

See: Lysenkoism

Though being aware of the biases involved in the literature is always important

The second sentence of OP should have started with "Scientific research"

No yeah for real. I've never seen him doing anything I would really consider to be annoying, or at least, more annoying than any other science communicator, and he constantly gets shit on for being like, too cocky, but then when you push back I never get any examples of things he's actually fucked up on, just that he has bad vibes.

I don't know, even on his own podcast I found him more willing to sound right than be right. Not that he was wrong, just dropping nuance and exceptions for the sake of sounding absolute and axiomatically correct.

His words end up being easy to poke holes in if and only if you know what he's talking about. Thus I find it hard to accept what he says when I don't know what he's talking about.

Paper castles look good, but a short stone wall has a better reputation.

If all scientific knowledge were to suddenly disappear and we were to start from square one, it would all reappear exactly like it is.

Three competing theories of evolution arose, independently, in our world - one from British and European scientists studying the tropics, another from Russian and US scientists studying Siberia and northern North America, and a third by a Japanese scientist studying statistics and genetics. While the current consensus in evolutionary biology is that all three are true (at different timescales), the vast majority of people (and even other scientists) only know the first. This is partly because Darwin got there first, and partly because a lot of powerful people benefit from spreading social Darwinist woo.

Ironically, in a post-apocalyptic world, the powers that be would probably support the symbiotic theory, with Darwinism frowned upon as selfish individualism.

however the process of science will ensure that the truth comes to light eventually.

As Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. Science is probably the best tool we currently have to find the truth (assuming there is a truth), but it is always important to remember that it is produced by humans, funded by interests and (mostly, though this is changing) published by for-profit journals. When reading a paper, always read the conflict of interest and funding details, and hope the authors are being honest.

OP misunderstood Kuhn maybe.

And more often than not, with careful reading and a little touch of skeptecism, you can pull a lot of worthwhile information out of the noise.

I would highly highly doubt it. He's just the "science man" of memes so he's used as a stand in for all scientists, or at least science communicators.