Scientific Intersubjectivism

The position that scientific objectivity is achieved not by escaping subjectivity (impossible) but by coordinating multiple subjectivities through shared methods, critical dialogue, and community validation. A finding is "objective" not because it comes from no perspective, but because it survives scrutiny from many perspectives. Different labs, different methods, different researchers—if they converge, you have intersubjective agreement, which is the closest science gets to truth. Intersubjectivism replaces the impossible ideal of the view from nowhere with the achievable reality of the view from everywhere, checked by everyone.

"You think your personal experience is objective truth? Scientific Intersubjectivism says: bring it to the community, let others test it, let critics shred it. If it survives, it's not because you're special—it's because your claim works for all of us. That's how science actually works."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Subjectivism

The (usually controversial) position that scientific knowledge is ultimately grounded in subjective experience—the scientist's perceptions, judgments, and interpretations. Even the most objective measurement must be read by a subject, interpreted by a mind, and reported in language shaped by a culture. Subjectivism doesn't deny that we learn about a real world—it insists that this learning is always mediated through subjects, and that pretending otherwise creates blind spots. The question isn't whether subjectivity contaminates science (it does), but whether we acknowledge and account for it or pretend we've transcended it.

"He claims his data is purely objective, but Scientific Subjectivism notes: he chose which measurements to take, which outliers to drop, which statistical test to use. Every step involved subjective judgment. Objectivity isn't avoiding subjectivity—it's being honest about where it enters."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Relativism

The view that scientific truth is relative to a conceptual framework, paradigm, or cultural context—what's true in one framework may not be true in another. This is often misunderstood as "everything is equally true," which is not the claim. The claim is that truth-claims are evaluated within frameworks, and frameworks themselves are not neutrally comparable. Newtonian physics is true within its domain of medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds; relativistic physics is true in a broader domain. They're not both true in the same way—they're true relative to their conditions of application. The relativism is about frameworks, not facts.

"Is mental illness a brain disorder or spiritual crisis? Scientific Relativism says: it depends on your framework. Both are real ways of understanding; neither is the final truth. The trick is knowing which framework fits which situation, not fighting about which is universally right."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Postmodernism

A much-misunderstood approach that applies postmodern critique to scientific practice: questioning grand narratives of inevitable progress, exposing the power relations embedded in knowledge production, deconstructing the binary oppositions that structure scientific thought (nature/culture, objective/subjective, fact/value), and attending to the marginalized voices excluded from scientific conversation. Scientific Postmodernism doesn't deny that science produces knowledge—it denies that this knowledge comes from nowhere, serves everyone equally, or stands outside history. It's science forced to look at its own reflection, and it makes some scientists very uncomfortable.

"You think science is pure truth-seeking? Scientific Postmodernism asks: who funded the research? Whose interests does it serve? Who wasn't in the room when methods were chosen? Who benefits from this 'neutral' finding? Not because science is bad—because pretending it's innocent is dangerous."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Multiperspectivism

The methodological commitment to studying phenomena from multiple, irreconcilable perspectives simultaneously, accepting that no single viewpoint captures everything and that different perspectives reveal different truths. A cell is simultaneously a biochemical machine (biology), a legal entity (patent law), a site of labor (the technician's experience), and a piece of someone's body (the patient's experience). Multiperspectivism doesn't try to synthesize these into one master perspective—it holds them in tension, moving between them as the situation demands. It's the science of binocular vision applied to everything.

"Your paper on this disease only considers the molecular mechanism. Scientific Multiperspectivism demands: what's the patient's experience? The epidemiologist's pattern? The healthcare system's cost? The cultural meaning of illness? The molecule is real, but so are all the other perspectives. Science needs them all."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Rhizome

A model of scientific knowledge inspired by Deleuze and Guattari: knowledge as a rhizome—a sprawling, horizontal network with no center, no hierarchy, no single root. Unlike tree-like knowledge that branches from fundamental principles downward, rhizomatic science connects in any direction: neuroscience links to phenomenology links to Buddhist meditation links to computational modeling. Connections are made where useful, not where dictated by disciplinary hierarchy. The rhizome grows in all directions, with no beginning or end, just ongoing connection and transformation. It's science that refuses to stay in its lane.

"Your department is organized by disciplines with clear boundaries. But my research on consciousness connects neurology, philosophy, meditation practice, and AI. It's a Scientific Rhizome—it doesn't fit your tree, and it's not supposed to. Deal with it."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Standpoint

The theory, rooted in feminist epistemology, that marginalized social positions can provide epistemic advantages—insights unavailable from dominant perspectives. Someone who experiences both the dominant culture (as they must to survive) and their own marginalized culture has double vision: they see things that those fully inside power cannot. Scientific Standpoint doesn't claim that marginalized people are automatically right—it claims they have access to questions, problems, and perspectives that others miss. Good science seeks out these standpoints not for diversity's sake, but because they see ghosts the center cannot.

"The clinical trial only included men, so the drug's effects on women were invisible for decades. Scientific Standpoint says: had women been in the room designing the research, this ghost would have been seen from the start. Marginalized perspectives aren't just fair—they're better science."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026