Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#111

Post by rosterface »

komali2 wrote: post #108
komali2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be s…

> No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes Ok... but we've now left the field of genetics. Professional athletes are determined by whether they get hired to play sports professionally, not by genetic birthright. > Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Again, unsure the relation to genetics here, but this also isn't true. Muggsy was a god and is 5'3". Curry…

I admit I’m using height as a shorthand here. I’ll put it more simply: Do you think anyone can become a professional athlete with the right training?

I don’t. I think it’s a field where genetics determine who can succeed and who can’t. That isn’t to say that everyone who can become a professional athlete becomes one though.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#112

Post by malvosenior »

komali2 wrote: post #110
malvosenior wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your response. I don't agree with all of it (I'm in the 'life ain't fair' camp) but certainly there are people whose latent ability is there but can't be utilized due to one reason or the other. The thing is though, that there's no way a company can correct for that. Let's take addiction as an example. A company most definitely should not be hiring addicts. Getting work done is difficult in the best of s…

Fair. I don't expect companies to manage drug addicts. But what about ex-drug-addicts? Or convicted felons that have served their time? The government "fixes" the problem and them drops them into society and says "good luck!" (well, it actually doesn't, but for the sake of argument) I'm saying in cases like this, these people can offer valuable insight due to their circumstances. Perhaps valuable enough to spend a co…

I actually practice this more than my argument probably leads on. Coming from an unorthodox background means that I don't really evaluate potential hires based on their school, upbringing... I look solely at ability to do the job. I don't have the liberty of gambling on unqualified people though. I personally would hire an ex-felon if they could demonstrate the ability to code at the level required for a position. That's a pretty personal choice though and I wouldn't fault someone for not being comfortable doing that.

What I won't do is hire someone who's unqualified. I've seen (and passed on) plenty of unqualified people with degrees from high end schools so this cuts both ways.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#113

Post by fromthestart »

komali2 wrote: post #90
fromthestart wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Or are you really that determined to pretend that all population differences just stop at the shoulders? The consistently different outward expression of genetic variation among populations is obvious - skin color, height, weight, fat proportion, hair type, eye color, predispositio…

> Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Yes, actually, because civilization is only (barely) 10,000 years old, which is not many generations to develop "cognitive" difference. Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyon…

Humans diverged long before the appearance of civilization. According to Wikipedia[1], the first homo sapien migration out of Africa began 300,000 years ago.

>Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance).

Your point that all differences arise from societal treatment is debatable. There are adoptive population studies from the late 20th century where non-white infants adopted by white families were evaluated during adolescence and consistently showed measurable, significant differences SAT scores, for example. Of course, how much of that is still an effect of nurture neither of us can say.

Ultimately it is still an open question, but, appropos to the article, the current political climate of the scientific establishment will unlikely allow for an unbiased study, or any study, into the subject.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#114

Post by RickJWagner »

apo wrote: post #9

You have a group of people in Washington tasked with doling out money for research. By its very nature this federal funding has politicized science for a long time. Ask anyone who has been through a scientific PhD program whether or not their field has been politicized because of grants received or not received. The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be politicized the right way. Diver…

Spot on. Science needs to be data-driven, accurate and absolutely without politics.

Anything otherwise, and we lose credibility and a good chunk of audience for political reasons.

Don't weaponize Science! Keep it pure, keep it true.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#115

Post by tzs »

fromthestart wrote: post #6

>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science. We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent work…

> We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views

In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right.

However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scientists might be important because the members of the general public and the politicians that represent them are probably more likely to listen to scientists who are like them.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#116

Post by 75dvtwin »

apo wrote: post #9

You have a group of people in Washington tasked with doling out money for research. By its very nature this federal funding has politicized science for a long time. Ask anyone who has been through a scientific PhD program whether or not their field has been politicized because of grants received or not received. The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be politicized the right way. Diver…

I do not think author of this piece has particularly good intentions at all.

Good intentions would have included self-reflection, non-partisan discussion of alternative views, and so on.

A simple review of the funding sources of The Union of Concerned scientists letters, this piece is based on, explains the motives (eg 20mln for linking man-made climate affects and hurricanes).

https://buyingbias.org/2017/09/20/457/

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#117

Post by flukus »

tzs wrote: post #115
fromthestart wrote: post #6

>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science. We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent work…

> We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right. However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scien…

Two of the biggest science personalities of the last decade or two have been Neil Tyson and Michio Kaku, presumably you think replacing them with white men would have led to more acceptance of science given the ethnic distribution?

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#118

Post by DuskStar »

jonhendry18 wrote: post #97
eitland wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read carefully you might notice that I don't say everyone does, but I fully expect scientists to be smart enough to add those magic words to anything they want to study. Source: I'm an engineer, I fully expect scientists to outperform me in this ;-)

"I'm an engineer" "I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists" Is guessing what engineers do now? I hope I never use anything you worked on.

Fermi estimates are also known as "guessing with extra steps", but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#119

Post by DuskStar »

Veen wrote: post #21

> We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc. I note a diversity of politics isn’t included.

I'm personally rather confused as to how a diversity of ability is useful. A diversity of abilities perhaps, but I don't see how having an incompetent in the loop is supposed to help.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#120

Post by tomhoward »

xamuel wrote: post #64
komali2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the difference is the concept of "uplifting." Given two people, one who had money and therefore lots of high-quality STEM education, and another who does not have money and struggling to acquire a STEM education while also dealing with poverty (and the poorer quality education that comes with it), yes, probably the rich kid will do better at their job sooner. But there's nothing inherently preventing the po…

That's a really interesting way of looking at things. How do you reconcile that with the notion of Darwinian evolution? Is it not true that individual organisms are born with small mutations which make them more or less suitable for an environment, and that over long time periods, the ones who are more suitable for an environment will flourish in that environment? Are you suggesting the individual could reverse a det…

This position hinges on the giant assumption that "genetic mutations" are effectively the only important factor in one's life outcomes.

It's a point of view I'm thoroughly familiar with as I've read/listened to plenty of material by Richard Dawkins et al, and spent a solid few years of my life subscribing to that deterministic/materialistic worldview.

But, both for reasons of curiosity and personal need, it's a worldview I ended up researching deeply enough to progress beyond, and it turns out there's plenty of evidence that factors beyond one's genetic code are at least as important, and quite possibly vastly more so.

Most importantly: genetic expression (epigenetics), which we already know can change during one's lifetime, and may be able to be changed far more significantly/rapidly, and have a far greater propensity to change one's life outcomes, than has been previously accepted.

> Are you suggesting the individual could reverse a detrimental inherited mutation in his own lifetime (as opposed to the lifetime of his distant descendants), if properly nurtured?

I don't suggest that but I think it's far less important than you assume.

However I do suggest that a person can reverse a detrimental genetic expression if properly nurtured.

I've spent about the last 8 years putting this hypothesis to the test and so far have been successful in overcoming multiple debilitating health conditions and dramatically improving my capabilities and outcomes in my professional and personal life.

And yes, I'm fully cognisant that I am an n=1 self-evaluated anecdote, so my case is at-best suggestive, not conclusive.

But I'm not alone in applying these theories and having these kinds of outcomes, and there is a growing body of scientific theory and research to provide a basis for these experiences/observations.

Post reply on HN