Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's a fairly common attitude. Thus far it doesn't seem to be down voted. I wrote what I think of as a fairly coherent objection. I expect it to be voted down. Would you also recommend "pre vouching" for it?
[flagged]
U.S. science is in chaos
171–180 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#172[flagged]
Certainly most universities now have a very strong liberal bias. I think most science departments were left leaning in the 1950s, but it is stronger now. (I think colleges and universities have always been more progressive than the general populous.) The administrations of universities are now very strongly Democrat leaning. I think that Trump just sees a lot of Democrat run institutions and thinks, "Why should the g…
I used to know a Republican lobbyist who worked on environmental issues. He used to represent the coalition of fishers, hunters, hikers, bird-watchers, etc. who valued healthy forests, water, etc. but that line of work disappeared when they put out the fatwa against giving Obama any legislative wins even on issues which have broad public support and it never really came back because the party leadership decide that they represented industry first and only. Those people didn’t suddenly become liberals, the party moved away from them.
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think it’s less that it’s impossible but more that we don’t have any clue as to what causes differences among groups and many people use such measured differences as evidence for pretty deplorable ideas. There’s much more evidence for social determiners than anything biological. Everyone outside of Africa shares a single ancestor 20,000 years ago. There’s far more genetic diversity within Africa than the rest of th…
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#174After the election my very first thought was that this is the start of the Chinese century, since America has voted to step down. Seems to be playing out.
No other country punches itself in the face as hard or as often as the usa does.
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#175[flagged]
Certainly most universities now have a very strong liberal bias. I think most science departments were left leaning in the 1950s, but it is stronger now. (I think colleges and universities have always been more progressive than the general populous.) The administrations of universities are now very strongly Democrat leaning. I think that Trump just sees a lot of Democrat run institutions and thinks, "Why should the g…
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me neither. Lots of them deny that certain differences between humanity exist however, and that's just biology. Eg. Fe-/male and racial differences. They exist, yet they cannot be admitted to and any reference to them will have the political left call you a nazi, racist, sexist and pedo to boot, because the other terms are already less impactful from overuse
It’s one of those topics where there’s a kernel of truth, but most people who insist women or Black people are scientifically different are not doing so out of any interest in science. So the small percentage of people who just want to make a valid point get lumped in with the much larger group, and unfairly tarred. Perhaps because, to many people, it seems wrong to set policy based on marginal differences in the agg…
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not well-versed in social science either so I don't have a slam dunk here, but I'd be very willing to bet it's more involved than you're portraying. To flip it on your space telescope, another one? They've been doing this for years, they're just going to tell us there's a lot of galaxies out there, boring.
> To flip it on your space telescope, another one? They've been doing this for years, they're just going to tell us there's a lot of galaxies out there, boring. You’re not “flipping”, you’re just making a silly reduction. There’s tons of things we don’t know about black holes. We don’t need another study to tell us that poor people are sicker due to past racism. (One can certainly argue that it’s not worth the money…
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#178This article informs a good understanding and confirms the issues I've witnessed in academia. However, I found that it didn't cover the censorship of any criticism of Israel in science and academics. This was explicitly codified into law with respect to government funding and is a major topic of scientific funding in colleges and universities. Scientific grants and researchers often require a Zionist bias to get fund…
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To flip it on your space telescope, another one? They've been doing this for years, they're just going to tell us there's a lot of galaxies out there, boring. You’re not “flipping”, you’re just making a silly reduction. There’s tons of things we don’t know about black holes. We don’t need another study to tell us that poor people are sicker due to past racism. (One can certainly argue that it’s not worth the money…
Now imagine that there might be more depth to social sciences as well? Do you think we have it all figured out? Is Economics solved as well?
I didn't malign all social sciences.
> Do you think we have it all figured out?
No.
Re: U.S. science is in chaos
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because the medical system hasn't adapted to the (frankly astounding) findings produced by SDOH research doesn't mean it's not valuable or should be stopped. The takeaway from SDOH is that social determinants are by far more powerful forces on people's health than actual medicine. You would prefer we spend all of our money on the 10-15% of health outcomes determined by actual medical care and simply ignore the r…
> (frankly astounding) findings produced by SDOH research I'm telling you, these same "astounding" findings were around 20 years ago. I learned about them when I was an undergraduate. They haven't changed. Things can be astounding and still be old news. Quantum mechanics were astounding in 1930. Doesn't mean we should firehose money into standard model research. The world moves on. > You would prefer we spend all of…
Is this a field you've been following closely, or am I listening to the equivalent of a person with no interest in quantum mechanics complaining that nothing new has happened in quantum mechanics?