> 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.
We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
21–30 of 134 posts
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#22If you cannot see that the March for Science is part of the problem of the politicization of science, then you are lost all the same.
Calling the march a part of the problem is a cop-out excusing the real problems - the political response to science that spurred the march, the political response to the march itself, and mass-media's role in the politicization of science. If we say that the march is the problem, then we're saying that we should be taking at face-value anything the lobbyist talking heads of Fox News and CNN say about whatever they're…
I think we should be precise here.
Saying the march is part of the problem does not mean that the lobbyists are not also part of the problem. It also does not mean the march is a _root cause_ of the problem.
It just acknowledges that the march is a part of the politicization of science, which it is.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#23Lol, as somebody that gave up of research, I can just tell you: try to do any research where the theme goes against the so called left-tolerant politics. You won't be able to do it.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#24Science is the search for truth, not the truth. At one time 'science' was justifying eugenics, slavery, apartheid, racism and entire policies were rolled out on the basis of discredited pseudo science of brain size.
You can imagine racists and sexists at that time appealing to 'science' to maintain their privilege and worldview. You can see this now too, evidence free sweeping assertions based on some scientific study but not supported by that study and thus science, but presented as 'science'.
Large segments of the population have suffered grievously based on this kind of 'science'. Hitler used eugenics and science. Science is not some absolute truth, its a long drawn process to collect evidence, test assertions and arrive at some truth, and its always been used and co-opted by those in power to advance their objectives.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#25Forgive me for my ignorance- I was under the impression that scientific inquiry has always been strongly affected by politics. See: The argument on whether or not evolution is real. The discovery that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The entire controversy behind the discovery of and research into AIDS.
Is there something new I'm not understanding?
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#26SciAm made the same battlecry (plea) back in the 90s. I supported it then as I support it now. But it didn't work then and won't work now. Because we don't understand the enemy. The remedy isn't messaging, framing, engagement, empathy, discussion, or whatever else rational people hope will induce irrationals to step into the light. Trying to sneak science thru the infotainment propaganda blockade ain't gonna work. An…
Do you seriously believe there is a dearth of left-wing mainstream media outlets? And the problem with the politicization of science is not a right-vs-left issue. The left has its own bag of anti-science positions (e.g., blank slatism, anti-GMO, implicit bias, etc). EDIT: Do downvoters question that the majority of prominent news outlets are left-wing or that the left has anti-science positions?
Sputnik
My mentor's theory is that the assault on reason, America's proud tradition of anti-intellectualism, took a brief hiatus after WWII because the Cold War and the space race required rocket scientists and engineers. So a brief truce of sorts was maintained between the humanists and the know-nothings.
Sad to think we'll need an external existential threat like an alien invasion or imminent asteroid strike to pause the food fight.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#27When these issues are raised, people tend to have two counter-productive reactions. The first is abject defeatism. The second anger at the messenger and accusations that they're a part of the problem. Or, in other words, talking about politicizing science is politicizing science. Both have justifiable viewpoints at their core but are harmful in the long-term nonetheless. The first is harmful and wrong for a straightf…
That's fine, as long as scientists are fully conscious of the cognitive biases induced by their politics. There is definitely a phenomenon of academia trying to pass off political conviction as empirical fact.
Given that the universe was not made for the enjoyment of humans, everyone needs to be prepared to accept their preferred policies may have no empirical backing.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#28You 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…
Academia is political too. Inherently relations between people are by definition political. The point is to raise the role of epistemology in decision making where it is possible. That's all.
I think the parent comment was referring to "political" specifically in the sense of "dealing with the government", not the general (e.g. "office politics") sense.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#29>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…
Except that we are now seeing this is WRONG. Look at AI and machine learning. We are now finding algorithms that have implicit racial biases because the only people who worked on them were Asian and Caucasian. Not that the people working on them explicitly tried to write the algorithms with bias, they simply did because humans are BAD at projecting outside of their own experiences and what they see in the mirror. Tha…
What would it take for you to falsify your stance? If nothing can make you falsify it, then that's not science, that's pseudoscience.
Unconscious bias entering AI is bad. But consider this scenario. Imagine for decades, there's been a chemical leak in Cleveland, which has been causing people there to become worse at math. An AI detects that people from Cleveland are worse at math. Do you just throw the data away because it must be subconscious human bias? If you do, you're throwing away a chance to discover the underlying cause (the leak)! Who knows what sort of things we've thrown away on the altar of "everyone must be equal, there can be no nuance"!
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#30One of the problems with the “defend science” movement is that it’s often being (mis)-used to support philosophical positions that are fundamentally unanswerable by science: concepts like afterlife, gender, and when life begins. I’m not saying I disagree with the popular viewpoints, but science is the wrong tool for the job. (Does human life have inherent value? I don’t know, but better predictive models and more exp…
I think your philosophical position that those questions are unanswerable by science is part of the problem. We need more science education and popularization of its tools for solving problems.