I never claimed to be one. My comment is directly relevant to the parent, so is on topic. Also, good job demonstrating courtesy with your dismissive tone.
You’re making some unwarranted assumptions about what it would take to make a reasonable statement about the world. For example:
>> any deduction you would make from it meaningless
Deduction is only one mode of argument, and it is actually used the least in practical decision making and action. Hypothesis testing follows inductive reasoning, which works by filling in knowledge based on observed effects and theorization about plausible causes. Abduction is applied when diagnosing illnesses, trying to triangulate upon a best fit from multiple vectors, including both known postulates and inferences drawn from speculation pertaining to observed effects. Deduction is useful on paper, and that’s why its most commonly employed in math land. But in the real world, induction and abduction are king.
>> You yourself must believe in some universal truth otherwise you would not attempt to communicate with other beings
That’s a false misconception about relativism, especially common among those who seem perpetually trapped in math land. If you want to learn more about this I highly recommend that you read Barry Barnes’ and David Bloor’s chapter titled Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge in Hollis and Lukes 1982 edited volume Rationality and Relativism.
I have no idea why this is getting downvoted so much. This is a great, well articulated comment that raises significant points by situating science as a human activity, and thereby subject to situated experienced.
The often-overlooked fields of Science and Technology Studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, which have been around for decades (and which, contrary to what many believe, treat Latour as an initiator of further discussion that has spun into much more robust work, rather than as a decisive figure). I wholeheartedly recommend any interested readers to look into it, particularly Andrew Pickering’s 1992 edited volume Science as Cultural Practice as an introductory jumping off point. My second recommendation is always Karin Knorr-Cetina’s 2001 book titled Epistemic Cultures (anything else by her is also superb!).
The problem with this, though, is that evidence is only as good as its appropriateness for addressing the goal or question at hand, and the suitability of the method for overcoming the gap between where you are now and the projected outcome. Consideration of all these factors is called __research__, not science, thereby incorporating a greater plurality of approaches for addressing various kinds of questions.
For example, treating human social interactions as simulated particles is not considered a good way to understand social relations, according to most anthropologists and social scientists. Instead, methods and frameworks that rely on more useful kinds of information, namely situated testimonials from involved participants, are devised to facilitate reasonable ways to understand what’s going on from an outsiders perspective. The evidence is very different from what a physicist might consider appropriate, but the questions, goals and limitations of anthropology warrant a very different approach. This approach, however, has been well thought out and devised with a full understanding of the practical limitations and affordances of social science research.
Guns, Germs and Steel is pseudo-anthropology, and pretty much all anthropologists are extremely critical of it. Please be aware of this while you read it.