Science gets controversial.
Discussion
I think most claims of PC gone mad are nonsense, but this does seem to be real example of controversial research being suppressed purely on the grounds it is controversal.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activist...
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activist...
This is the paper, it is pretty innocuous by itself, the irony is I probably wouldn't have even read it if it wasn't for the controversy over its attempted suppression.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
"While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”"
Is she essentially saying to women, "Don't you worry your pretty head about it, love."?
Is she essentially saying to women, "Don't you worry your pretty head about it, love."?
4x4Tyke said:
This is the paper, it is pretty innocuous by itself, the irony is I probably wouldn't have even read it if it wasn't for the controversy over its attempted suppression.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
That's what these people don't realise - by drawing attention to it, they're widening the audience. If they'd have kept quiet, it would have remained in the small circle of people who read this sort of thing.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
What an extraordinary story this is. Or is it quite so extraordinary?
Too much credence is given to the objectivity and integrity of science and scientists. I had a taste of this when (many years ago) I was working in geological/oceanographic research and came up with some stuff that questioned established assumptions and would have made redundant maps in more than one revered textbook.
If anyone thinks that politics and fashion play no part in the evolution of scientific ideas then they are sadly mistaken. Much of my uncertainty about climate change science revolves around this same problem. I don't see why we should trust scientists any more than used car salesmen or estate agents, but they seem to have canonised into the saints of a popular religion.
Too much credence is given to the objectivity and integrity of science and scientists. I had a taste of this when (many years ago) I was working in geological/oceanographic research and came up with some stuff that questioned established assumptions and would have made redundant maps in more than one revered textbook.
If anyone thinks that politics and fashion play no part in the evolution of scientific ideas then they are sadly mistaken. Much of my uncertainty about climate change science revolves around this same problem. I don't see why we should trust scientists any more than used car salesmen or estate agents, but they seem to have canonised into the saints of a popular religion.
“He would be allowed 15 minutes to describe and explain our results, and this short presentation would be followed by readings of prepared statements by WIM members and then an open discussion. We promise to be friendly,” she announced, “but you should know in advance that many (most?) of us have strong disagreements with what you did.”
Not strong disagreement with the data, findings or conclusions of the paper?
Doesn't sound like a very scientific approach.
When scientific research can be stifled to pander to political correctness - surely it shows just how broken things are.
Not strong disagreement with the data, findings or conclusions of the paper?
Doesn't sound like a very scientific approach.
When scientific research can be stifled to pander to political correctness - surely it shows just how broken things are.
At times science advances one funeral at a time.Roofless Toothless said:
If anyone thinks that politics and fashion play no part in the evolution of scientific ideas then they are sadly mistaken.
Of course it is - scientists are only human after all. But their credibility should absolutely be called to question where that is shown to be the case.Roofless Toothless said:
I don't see why we should trust scientists any more than used car salesmen or estate agents, but they seem to have canonised into the saints of a popular religion.
Really! You are equating hundreds of years of demonstrable scientific achievements to selling dodgy used cars and coming up with misleading descriptions of houses?Whilst there are clearly a minority of subjects like the one in the OP or climate change that are highly politically charged - the vast majority of science is apolitical and integrates into our lives pretty seamlessly.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 23 September 09:02
I think I would have to defend that, yes.
People need religion, and the collapse of traditional religions over recent times has left a great void which people will fill. Science and scientists for many people are the new churches and saints of popular culture. And in the same way that men (and women!) of the cloth have been found to have feet of clay so do scientists.
Career, self interest and the urge for fame penetrate the scientific community in just the same way as any other sector of society.
I am sure there are many honest scientists and priests quietly working away with integrity and contributing to the sum of human happiness, but the higher up the food chain you go, and the more they turn into 'celebrities' the less I trust them.
People need religion, and the collapse of traditional religions over recent times has left a great void which people will fill. Science and scientists for many people are the new churches and saints of popular culture. And in the same way that men (and women!) of the cloth have been found to have feet of clay so do scientists.
Career, self interest and the urge for fame penetrate the scientific community in just the same way as any other sector of society.
I am sure there are many honest scientists and priests quietly working away with integrity and contributing to the sum of human happiness, but the higher up the food chain you go, and the more they turn into 'celebrities' the less I trust them.
It all boils down to one thing, people are fallible, in any situation or circumstance anyone who is involved is subconsciously bringing all their own ideas and preconceptions along too.
I am not surprised by the finding of the paper, I am not surprised by its conclusions and I am not surprised by the reaction to it from some quarters.
As the poster above mentioned Climate science, I concur, that has become like a religion with both sides taking unhealthy entrenched views.
Unless we just use AI for science in future we will keep on seeing this.
I am not surprised by the finding of the paper, I am not surprised by its conclusions and I am not surprised by the reaction to it from some quarters.
As the poster above mentioned Climate science, I concur, that has become like a religion with both sides taking unhealthy entrenched views.
Unless we just use AI for science in future we will keep on seeing this.
Roofless Toothless said:
Career, self interest and the urge for fame penetrate the scientific community in just the same way as any other sector of society.
They do, but the vast majority of science isn't done by 'celebrity' scientists and the vast majority of science has no more chance of making you famous than working on a checkout in Tesco.Science also has thing called the peer review process. Self interest is a lot more difficult to push forward when you have others scrutinising your results, conclusions and attempting to repeat your work as a matter of course.
It happens of course - but your analogy to car dealers and estate agents is patently ridiculous.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 23 September 10:43
Roofless Toothless said:
If anyone thinks that politics and fashion play no part in the evolution of scientific ideas then they are sadly mistaken. Much of my uncertainty about climate change science revolves around this same problem. I don't see why we should trust scientists any more than used car salesmen or estate agents, but they seem to have canonised into the saints of a popular religion.
I suggest most people are (unfortunately) wary of 'scientists' - because they didn't do scence at school because art was easier. And so they will end up as humanities graduates, pontificating loudly about science but actually knowing very little about it.Science has achieved rather throughout history than religion.
Roofless Toothless said:
People need religion, and the collapse of traditional religions over recent times has left a great void which people will fill. Science and scientists for many people are the new churches and saints of popular culture.
The moral/philosophical guidance that religion offered was usurped at a very early stage by the people that led it - it's a power thing and still is. 'God is dead, and we killed him...Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?' was noted at the turn of the century.I don't think science has filled that gap as it offers little in terms of how to lead your life, and although not perfect, the rigours at the heart of science since the Enlightenment has served well to counter those that similarly would wish to usurp it.
I'd venture that at the heart of popular culture is the fragmented and disparate views of the individual being foist on the crowd with little pause for reason. The internet is having more impact than Guttenburg's press.
4x4Tyke said:
I think most claims of PC gone mad are nonsense, but this does seem to be real example of controversial research being suppressed purely on the grounds it is controversal.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activist...
Science has always been controversial. https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activist...
Just ask that Italian bloke / scientist. His spanking by the church was a lot harsher than these chaps no doubt in 21st C world.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff