A few weeks back, I wrote about negative metascience. While “traditional” metascience is about studying what makes science work well, or faster, negative metascience is the idea that there’s value in attempting to defend scientific processes and institutions against inhibitors of progress. While we need a traditional, positive metascience to improve our science, we also need a better understanding of science’s failure modes. That’s what negative metascience is for.
If you’re looking for something big, you might want to look into modern string theory essentially parasitising a large fraction of physics. This is surely controversial, but I heard someone make a good argument that is essentially why there has been only marginal progress in the field of theoretical physics for decades now.
Is there any sort of study type that considers whether science may have started out of its lane and implicitly implies that it is the arbiter of Truth across all of reality, to any degree (to protect from classic, rhetoric based "disproofs" of the notion)?
If you’re looking for something big, you might want to look into modern string theory essentially parasitising a large fraction of physics. This is surely controversial, but I heard someone make a good argument that is essentially why there has been only marginal progress in the field of theoretical physics for decades now.
Is there any sort of study type that considers whether science may have started out of its lane and implicitly implies that it is the arbiter of Truth across all of reality, to any degree (to protect from classic, rhetoric based "disproofs" of the notion)?