This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Low‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2008. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

"Upon careful analysis, however, this argument seems an incomplete answer; given that there is a finite amount of experimental evidence, it also makes sense that there should be a finite amount of social forces as well, and still the problem persists."

This appears to be a fallacious argument; the general idea that social forces in some way influence science will not be refuted by the assertion that an infinite number of theories may be formed, exploring the precise manner in which this is taking place.

As in the overarching topic, only any specific theory about a state of affairs may be challenged this way - not the ontological premise that experimental data has some kind of connection to phenomena.

Laughlyn ( talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Where it is used as an argument against the rational value of scientific thought, it is also an argument from ignorance that throws the baby out with the bathwater, but I could not find any sources saying so. Might be just better to remove the statement 'it is used as an argument against the rational value of scientific thought' from the lede, as that is not sourced either? Maybe later. Anarchangel ( talk) 06:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply