[jdmtheNth]

How does his argument work with the current belief that objectivity and the scientific method is white supremacist oppression? Does his argument support the "alternate ways of knowing" that are being pushed as "indigenous science"?

[affgrff2]

Please help me understand. Who currently believes this and more meta, which people believe that people believe this and who in reality are those groups?

[jdmtheNth]

https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil... - page 7 for objectivity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMepYJhI7HU - for non-readers

https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/biology/graduate/intersection-sc...

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01312-4

[affgrff2]

Thanks, I think I understand your question better now. I guess Feyerabend's point is not that there are multiple valid opinions about the world but rather multiple adequate ways on finding (maybe universal) truth about the world. The frameworks you are referencing however seem to emphasize that there is no such thing as objective truth (and that claiming so might even be promoting white supremacy or racism). So I don't see how it would support it.

[kirkules]

I have not seen this view expressed in this way except by people who do not support it. Do you remember or know any examples I could check out?

[_dain_]

https://nitter.1d4.us/realchrisrufo/status/15791203845193072...