We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by komali2 » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #22

ilikehurdles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science, could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"

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

#52

Post by mooseburger » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #51

ameister14 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science, could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"

One that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.

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

#53

Post by bluGill » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #41

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…

Probably if you spend enough time and effort you can find something political in, say, the mathematics papers written by any given university research team on any given year. But if a politician advocates for teaching that Pi is exactly three, in my opinion that's on a whole different level. Your post advocates for false equivalence, in a somewhat indirect manner. We get to "all science is politicized". And then the…

What value is in that mathematical papers though? Most of it is correct within itself, but useless for anything real world and always will be.

There is only so much labor we have as society. We need to make choices as to what we do. If everybody was willing we could dedicate society to just math. People can sleep under their desk at work, eat the mass produced cafeteria food, never watch sports, just work eat sleep. A lot of mathematicians could be funded with the leftover money (remember they are living the same life so their cost of living is tiny - more than half our population could produce more theorems).

The above is obviously Reductio ad Absurdum. However it brings out the point: we as a society have already decided math isn't the most valuable thing. We are already drawing limits, the only question is where.

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

#54

Post by komali2 » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

fromthestart wrote: post #35

chris_mc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>diversity of scientific, not cultural views Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of children in America vs. China is different, people have different dreams and experiences, etc. I am constantly baffled by people like yourself who don't understand that cultural diversity IS diversity of ideas. Whether that culture comes from your location, race, upbringing, wealth, religion, or someth…

And I'm constantly baffled by people like yourself who have accepted that culture influences technical work, but are unable to draw the logical conclusion that certain cultures are therefore better predisposed to success in a given industry than others. You can't have it both ways. If we concede that culture influences ability, then we must accept that merit based hiring will inevitably result in disproportionate rep…

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 poorer kid from doing just as good, if not better, a job. Get them on the job, help them deal with the obstacles, and they're just another person, and across populations that means equally likely to "perform" or "succeed." Meanwhile, you also have the advantage of their unique cultural perspectives.

You can have it both ways, the question is whether you take that information and say "fuck it, don't hire poors, they didn't get as good of an education and therefore will preform worse," or you say "if we invest time in this underrepresented culture, we may be exposed to markets we didn't even realize existed."

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

#55

Post by malvosenior » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #48

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.

Well given that the article is about defending science from politics, I'd imagine it would extend to removing politics in all senses of the word from science.

Except the post explicitly asks to inject politics into science by listing a bunch of political talking points. How would you advocate for diversity in class without politics for instance (choosing the least controversial of the topics)?

The agenda here is very clearly left wing politics.

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

#56

Post by eanzenberg » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:52 PM UTC

povertyworld wrote: post #18

This seems like another case of the left being shortsighted like when the left cheers as bigtech purges conservatives never imagining that left voices can and will be next if they ever became a threat. In this case, they seem only focused on climate change, but they should consider that there may be other scientific facts that go counter to left narratives. I seem to remember James Damore's scandalous post riddled wi…

Defend science, unless you disagree with its outcome!

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

#57

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:54 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #22

ilikehurdles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Science is inherently political because it is done by people.

And scientific knowledge has political implications because it tells us about the world around us, and politics is the process by which we decide how our laws will adapt to and affect that world.

None of that is inherently negative!

However, when political expedience and facts conflict, we should adapt the politics to the facts, and not the other way around.

That's what the "march for science" was about.

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

#58

Post by komali2 » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

mooseburger wrote: post #52

komali2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science, could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"

One that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.

In that case it is impossible to do Climate Change, science, no? It serves the interest of the Democratic "agenda," as a side effect.

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

#59

Post by commandlinefan » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #41

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…

Probably if you spend enough time and effort you can find something political in, say, the mathematics papers written by any given university research team on any given year. But if a politician advocates for teaching that Pi is exactly three, in my opinion that's on a whole different level. Your post advocates for false equivalence, in a somewhat indirect manner. We get to "all science is politicized". And then the…

> We get to "all science is politicized"

No, just the science that's fashionable to politicize. You can't pretend that this article isn't at least more biased than the people they're supposedly warning us about.

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

#60

Post by instantwhat » Tue, May 14, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

This discussion is a good example of why downvoting, graying comment text, and specifically, downvoting for disagreement, are bad.

The solution to the problem this story is about is robust, fearless discussion in pursuit of truth.

But what I see here are many thoughtful, reasoned comments being shamed and made hard-to-read by people who aren't able or willing to rebut them. It is cowardly and anti-intellectual.

It's effectively the downvoters saying, "I disagree with what you said, therefore I will make it harder for other people to hear you." It's antithetical to the stated purpose of this site: intellectual curiosity.