One of the most polarizing statements in today's public discourse is "science isn't real." To support this claim, many will cite that, in informal situations, scientists express doubts in their work or popular forms of science. In response, scientific establishments claim overwhelming truth and rigor to their results. Thus, today we've reached an impasse between the two totalizing perspectives. Is there a way to resolve these two perspectives? Can science be both true while disunified? Can scientists be both doubtful yet rigorous? In the following paper, I trace the development of one scientific discipline, statistical genetics, in which some researchers have expressed that their research may not be "real." With a wealth of interview and ethnographic data I illustrate a picture of science and scientists that can be both disunified and true, and the attitudes that exist within it. In doing so, I attempt to resolve the earlier questions by proposing a new way to understand scientific progress and development: disunity and distrust.
Ophelia Dominguez (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: