question thoughts

Who makes the puzzles science aims to solve?
Deep science is philosophy, and science is social too. Separating science from the scientists; Kuhn asserts the power of science comes from a community collectively investigating, a systemic investigative approach but who makes up this community? Who doesn't? How does that exclusion shape science if we understand science to be a system?
​
How do individual decisions in what to study shape the definition of science? Paradigms and natural selections: one is more favorable... traits that are more correct? Does science have a direction? Why does science progress? Kuhn describes how science is akin to evolution yet we accept the paradigm of Darwinian evolution with very little challenge (not creationism, but we don't push Darwinian evolution - MAYBE partially directed evolution, pilot wave, variables of randomness Melkikh and Khrennikov etc etc but even that concludes in Darwinian evolution for our world, and the possibility of other forms on the spectrum in other worlds).

Change in what we wish to know: what influences changes? All scientific theories are linked to production; our change has become hyper-focused because we accept the current paradigm. I wish more people asked questions on stuff that may change a paradigm rather than stuff that has a specific solution within the paradigm. 

Institution of science vs institutions of science - science as an enterprise - history of science determines what science is. What have we focused on? How does that focus shape the definition of science? Why did science evolve the way it did: we focus on Western science and ask why it didn't "evolve" in other places in the world like fucking dumbasses fr. 

Scientific ideas vs science (as practiced by institutions in the West? Is it the narrative or the ideas? Curiosity about the natural world = science???) Is part of science inherently translational science/is translational science actually part of Western science? Not debating the necessity of it but asking if we even have it. Science education is science itself. Teaching people what science is (not what equations are, or how to differentiate species of birds, but what is the institution/enterprise/field of science? What are the parts of science? Is this ever-evolving as well?) NEEDS to be part of every scientist's education in order to practice "good" science but not good science as defined by Kuhn but like so every scientist underfuckingstands what they are a part of. We just learn the established paradigms and that's not fucking enough if we want societal, era changing progress (progress towards what... a never-ending well of questions but stopping here)