Title: Criticism of science - Wikipedia
Headings: Criticism of science
Criticism of science
Contents
Philosophical critiques
Epistemology
Ethics
Critiques from within science
Reproduciblity
Cognitive and publication biases
Feminist critiques
Language in science
Media and politics
See also
Notes and references
Further reading

Content: (May 2018)
( Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (September 2016)
( Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Personification of "Science" in front of the Boston Public Library
Criticism of science addresses problems within science in order to improve science as a whole and its role in society. Criticisms come from philosophy, from social movements like feminism, and from within science itself. The emerging field of metascience seeks to increase the quality of and efficiency of scientific research by improving the scientific process. Contents
1 Philosophical critiques
1.1 Epistemology
1.2 Ethics
2 Critiques from within science
2.1 Reproduciblity
2.2 Cognitive and publication biases
3 Feminist critiques
3.1 Language in science
4 Media and politics
5 See also
6 Notes and references
7 Further reading
Philosophical critiques
"All methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits." ― Paul Feyerabend in Against Method
Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates a democratic society where science is treated as an equal to other ideologies or social institutions such as religion, and education, or magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules. Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts.