11–20 of 29 posts
[flagged]
At some point people need to call a spade a spade. I wish we weren’t here but we are and the anger is justified, the names factual.
> the US has been responsible for a huge amount of the basic research that we've been building the whole scientific enterprise on. We're now engaged in tearing all of that down, and it's a crime against this nation, against its people, and against the rest of the human race - an unforgivable one. Absolutely Right! Looking at it from outside the US, nothing makes sense except for two possibilities; 1) A vested group (…
[flagged]
> the US has been responsible for a huge amount of the basic research that we've been building the whole scientific enterprise on. We're now engaged in tearing all of that down, and it's a crime against this nation, against its people, and against the rest of the human race - an unforgivable one. Absolutely Right! Looking at it from outside the US, nothing makes sense except for two possibilities; 1) A vested group (…
The administration has attacked, as they promised when running for election, all of the perceived power centers of its opposition: the arts, individuals, educational institutions, selected law firms, science and researchers, civil servants, selected broadcasters, immigrants (legal and illegal), election systems (through both the legal system and political gerrymandering), selected industry projects - especially renew…
[flagged]
A partisan take would be "other team bad because my team good"
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's not partisan -- it's pointing a finger at a political party that has waged war on science. It's a factual assessment. A partisan take would be "other team bad because my team good"
War against science never ends well.
[flagged]
Yeah, this read more like a long twitter rant than anything I'd expect to find on science.org. With posts like these, I always wonder what the intent is? I'm an outsider, so to convince me of anything you'd have to give more context to your claims (linking to a few publications and using their titles as a priori fact isn't convincing). If you want to convince someone who has enough context to understand each claim, w…
What's actually happening is that you do know what's going on, but you've adopted a strong identity as an apolitical "outsider". So when you notice that the Trump regime hates scientific research and wants to destroy it, that's deeply uncomfortable; you'd be forced to adopt political opinions if you focused on that and paid attention to it. You're left with no choice but to blame the messenger for pointing towards it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not partisan -- it's pointing a finger at a political party that has waged war on science. It's a factual assessment. A partisan take would be "other team bad because my team good"
The Muslim empires stopped supporting science and intellectual curiosity just as the European powers slipped into the renaissance. War against science never ends well.
I think you're taking an extremely basic, high-level narrative of history - something like "During what westerners call the middle ages, European powers were backwards and the Islamic powers at the same time were flourishing and did a lot of scientific discovery" - and then immediately using your basic understanding of that narrative to argue for a policy position today, without thinking at all about any deeper historical complexity of what was happening across an entire civilizational sphere centuries before our time when the entire world was different - what would an ancient Islamic caliph have actually understood about the value of basic scientific research funding by the state, for instance.
And this bugs me mostly because it's such an unscientific worldview.