So, I went to MIT, and I had my share of classes which covered Philosophy of Science in some way (I can think of two such classes that I took, and they were different from each other in content and format).
What I wanted to add was this:
Philosophy of Science can be a certain special kind of fail in and of itself, I think, on several different intersecting layers. The Eurocentrism of it, and erasing of PoC and women, is only part of the problem -- as you pointed out there are also meta-ideological problems, like the student who said that "science is about making progress." There are lots of assumptions which underlie the philosophy of science which might be interesting to study in their own right, but which have a tendency to never be questioned and examined, because they are either assumed to be universal, or to be universal to anyone who "matters" to the discussion.
Science dictates a set of beliefs about the "real" nature of reality and how to know it/learn about it. Where reality does not align with the ideology of science/scientism, that reality is erased, or explicitly labeled as "not true" or "not possible."
So for example, in Western culture, including science, there is a belief that all knowledge exists objectively, and that all of it can (at least in theory) be accessed, learned and used by anyone equally -- the person learning or doing it does not matter. But (as one example) I have read of traditions across the world which hold that certain knowledge (such as healing knowledge) is given by spirits to certain people, for use by those people, and if they were to try to tell others how they do things, their ability to heal (etc.) would be revoked. Since such knowledge falls outside "science," it becomes discounted (in theory or practice) as "not real," and then the racism, colonialism, etc. come into play to further stigmatize and marginalize such systems of knowledge, as well as the people who adhere to them and/or who are the recipients of such knowledge.
I do not recall ever learning in school, in any class, "philosophy of science" or not, that this "intrinsic fungibility of all knowledge (and the right of everyone to any and all knowledge" was the philosophical perspective that everyone was working from. I realized it on my own when I read about other systems of knowledge (outside of school). And then I realized how that philosophical belief supports colonialism and racism, e.g. white people feeling entitled to "secret Indian knowledge" and posing as Indians to try to get it for themselves -- or "for posterity, in the name of science."
"Oh noes, these people are dying out, and their language and their knowledge, too -- we have to preserve this knowledge for future generations before it's lost for good!" Which assumes that others are entitled to it in the first place, and assumes that the knowledge can even be passed from person to person (rather than only from spirit to person).
Because spirits "don't exist."
This is just one example -- many other assumptions would likely also remain assumed and unquestioned, such as an unspoken assumption that science is, if not the "one true way" to know about the universe, certainly the "best" way. (And everything else is "religion," which, what, no.)
no subject
So, I went to MIT, and I had my share of classes which covered Philosophy of Science in some way (I can think of two such classes that I took, and they were different from each other in content and format).
What I wanted to add was this:
Philosophy of Science can be a certain special kind of fail in and of itself, I think, on several different intersecting layers. The Eurocentrism of it, and erasing of PoC and women, is only part of the problem -- as you pointed out there are also meta-ideological problems, like the student who said that "science is about making progress." There are lots of assumptions which underlie the philosophy of science which might be interesting to study in their own right, but which have a tendency to never be questioned and examined, because they are either assumed to be universal, or to be universal to anyone who "matters" to the discussion.
Science dictates a set of beliefs about the "real" nature of reality and how to know it/learn about it. Where reality does not align with the ideology of science/scientism, that reality is erased, or explicitly labeled as "not true" or "not possible."
So for example, in Western culture, including science, there is a belief that all knowledge exists objectively, and that all of it can (at least in theory) be accessed, learned and used by anyone equally -- the person learning or doing it does not matter. But (as one example) I have read of traditions across the world which hold that certain knowledge (such as healing knowledge) is given by spirits to certain people, for use by those people, and if they were to try to tell others how they do things, their ability to heal (etc.) would be revoked. Since such knowledge falls outside "science," it becomes discounted (in theory or practice) as "not real," and then the racism, colonialism, etc. come into play to further stigmatize and marginalize such systems of knowledge, as well as the people who adhere to them and/or who are the recipients of such knowledge.
I do not recall ever learning in school, in any class, "philosophy of science" or not, that this "intrinsic fungibility of all knowledge (and the right of everyone to any and all knowledge" was the philosophical perspective that everyone was working from. I realized it on my own when I read about other systems of knowledge (outside of school). And then I realized how that philosophical belief supports colonialism and racism, e.g. white people feeling entitled to "secret Indian knowledge" and posing as Indians to try to get it for themselves -- or "for posterity, in the name of science."
"Oh noes, these people are dying out, and their language and their knowledge, too -- we have to preserve this knowledge for future generations before it's lost for good!" Which assumes that others are entitled to it in the first place, and assumes that the knowledge can even be passed from person to person (rather than only from spirit to person).
Because spirits "don't exist."
This is just one example -- many other assumptions would likely also remain assumed and unquestioned, such as an unspoken assumption that science is, if not the "one true way" to know about the universe, certainly the "best" way. (And everything else is "religion," which, what, no.)