/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11808014

56KiB, 594x460, me2_blm_hockey.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

you cannot be a scientist and an activist

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 12:55:52 2020 No.11808014 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11808052 >>11808061 >>11808201 >>11808244 >>11809154 >>11809226 >>11809317 >>11809558 >>11811428 >>11813043 >>11813299 >>11813325

as simple as that

it seems to me clear that your work on public health is tainted if financed by the tobacco industry. or even worst, if you regent a smoking club. you cannot be a credible anthropologist and an open racist. be a nuclear engineer, antinuclear activist.
one activity or the other, both actually, become compromised

pic related: two women, different ethnicities with hockey sticks

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 13:03:28 No.11808034 Report

Quoted By: >>11808107

If it’s something related, sure, but the vast majority of scientists study things not even tangentially related to social issues, so whether they want to be an activist or not in their personal lives is fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 13:14:48 No.11808052 Report

Quoted By: >>11808089

>>11808014
You can't be a nuclear engineer yet want to dismantle all nuclear weapons? Really? Could see how it might hurt some potential job prospects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 13:17:42 No.11808061 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
found the pedo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 13:29:22 No.11808089 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808052
>You can't be a nuclear engineer yet want to dismantle all nuclear weapons?
perhaps
but if you work at a nuclear power plant and belong to greenpeace, lots of people will understandably be very nervous

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 13:35:10 No.11808107 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808034
>If it’s something related
of course. everyone is entitled to his/her opinion on any political thing. even on your own field of research. the problem is becoming a public activist on some particular issue or cause that clearly overlaps with your research.
the conflicts that then ensue are then multitude

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:16:32 No.11808201 Report

Quoted By: >>11808213 >>11808346 >>11808366

>>11808014
Yes you can. Evidence: see most uni departments outside of the hard sciences. Being an activist is basically a necessity to be a professor in gender or colonial studies.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO climatologists-and-greta.jpg, 99KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:24:28 No.11808213 Report

Quoted By: >>11808220 >>11808247

>>11808201
>outside of the hard sciences
climate so-called science departments

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:28:22 No.11808220 Report

Quoted By: >>11808234

>>11808213
Do not invert my arguments, I said that outside of those fields many activists can be found, which says nothing about whether or not activists can be found inside those fields.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:34:51 No.11808234 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808220
the original point was that activism and scientific integrity are mutually incompatible

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:38:40 No.11808244 Report

Quoted By: >>11808292

>>11808014
You're right, I studied chemistry all my life and this is every reason to never be a vegan.
Wow, such insight OP, thank you for opening my mind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:39:13 No.11808247 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808213
Why do we have to listen to the autistic victims of foetal alcohol poisoning?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO thinking.jpg, 18KiB, 580x381

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:55:31 No.11808292 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808244
your being vegan activist would be indeed a most interesting piece of info if you start publishing research on nutrition or advocating science-based policies against eg cattle raising I'd say

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 15:14:20 No.11808333 Report

Quoted By: >>11808344

>false dillema
>is vs ought

shit thread. no true scientist my fucking dick

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 15:20:32 No.11808344 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808333
synthesis is good, but verbs help comprehension

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 15:21:58 No.11808346 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808201
right, but they are outside the sciences

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 15:30:19 No.11808366 Report

Quoted By: >>11809327

>>11808201
I do not think it is even a question of hard-soft-liquid sciences. it is a question of intellectual honesty.

those so-called social sciences or humanities were ok most of the 20th c. they studied systems and questions more or less alien to hard sciences with radically different techniques. and that was ok. but at some point during the 90's or so, they went from being descriptive and explicative, to normative. and that was the turning point when everything went to shit.

that is what is happening in harder sciences now. this conflation of the scientist and activist is fucking everything

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO friendly_guy.jpg, 138KiB, 1212x1064

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 19:49:39 No.11809154 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
but my causes are just

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:05:54 No.11809179 Report

Quoted By: >>11809215 >>11809298

This is a false dichotomy. The antithesis of scientific inquiry is not activism.

Choosing to actively participate in building a better world (however you choose to define “better”) in no way diminishes your ability to study it scientifically. Indeed, one could argue that merely being a scientist is a form of activism in and of itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:18:58 No.11809215 Report

Quoted By: >>11809234

>>11809179
>This is a false dichotomy. The antithesis of scientific inquiry is not activism.
straw man argument. that's not what OP states. but that there is a clear conflict of interest between scientific enquiry in an specific area where you also are pushing a political agenda

>Choosing to actively participate in building a better world (however you choose to define “better”) in no way diminishes your ability to study it scientifically.
but we mock those whose research shows an increase of wealth and social advance in industrial societies when we find out that the research was supported by industrial partners. or because they show clear active preference for say, a political party closer to powerful economic partners.
they might be convinced that they are working and fighting for a better world, yet we consider their work compromised and invalid.
ditto for pharma, cigarette companies, global warming enterprises

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:23:07 No.11809226 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
>nuclear engineer
they aren’t scientists they’re monkeys paid by the gov/multinationals to do technical work.

You can be a scientist and have publicly stated political beliefs that affect how you would work in your field. Many people that worked at Los Alamos ended up being against nuclear proliferation. Many geneticists are anti-human embryo genetic engineering.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:25:55 No.11809234 Report

Quoted By: >>11809273 >>11809282

>>11809215
>straw man argument. That’s not what OP states.

That’s exactly what OP states. He says you cannot be a scientist and an activist at the same time, and then proceeds to give a bunch of examples of why X and Y cannot be pursued together because X and Y are logical opposites.

That’s literally OP’s argument.

>but we mock...
Now THIS is a straw man. Or another false dichotomy/black and white. Or maybe cherry picking. A bit of all of them.

You took one specific, hyperbolic example of something someone has done (someone who is not me) and tried to use it to undermine what I said. Who are “we” and “they”?

Again, I repeat: Scientific inquiry and activism and not antitheses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:38:20 No.11809273 Report

Quoted By: >>11809301

>>11809234
>at the same time
on the same area of research
you can work on whatever, and believe what you like. you may even be a wild cultish advocate of whichever cause(s). the problem appears when research and political agenda overlap.
you can take money from phillip morris for research on meteorites while fighting for blm-lgtbq gun rights and nobody will blink. but you write a paper on lung cancer and you'll be justly crucified.
you are an ardent fighter of wwf and greenpeace, an they will be fairly annoyed when they find out that you work in an experimental primates research lab.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:44:54 No.11809282 Report

Quoted By: >>11809301 >>11809317

>>11809234
>Scientific inquiry and activism and not antitheses
scientific inquiry in an area of research that overlaps your activism is tainted, suspicious and there is a clear conflict of interest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:53:16 No.11809298 Report

Quoted By: >>11809303

>>11809179
>Choosing to actively participate in building a better world (however you choose to define “better”) in no way diminishes your ability to study it scientifically.
It obviously does. Unless you believe that literally all human beings are perfect logical creatures.
Else you are basically guaranteed to run into conflicts of interests.

Imagine a die hard conservative in a gender studies program. His activism consists of trying to push for traditional families, now he publishes a study that shows that women in traditional families are happier.
What would be your reaction?

Would it be any different if it were a feminist in the same program publishing a study which says the reverse?

Why/why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:53:39 No.11809301 Report

Quoted By: >>11809303 >>11809308

>>11809273
>>11809282
Fair points. Conflicts of interest are definitely a very real concern.

But it would be naive to elevate this concern to an overly-general statement like “you cannot be a scientist an activist at the same time”.

There are clear exceptions to that statement. Anuclear physicist has no conflict of interest in being an activist for racial equality.
And even within one’s domain of research, there are exceptions. A climate scientist, for example, has absolutely every right to take part in activism related to global warming denialism. If a particular political party has beliefs that blatantly contradict established consensus in their field, then pushing for politics to re-examine their platform may very well be something they do. Is that not activism?

I guess my issue is with the level of generality in the statement. There is enough ambiguity in it to also easily mean “scientists are not allowed to pursue change in society.” This interpretation is false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 20:57:52 No.11809303 Report

Quoted By: >>11809321

>>11809298
See my recent post >>11809301

The confusion stems from ambiguity. You’re right that an evolutionary biologist’s objectivity could be called into question if that particular biologist also believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, but you’re wrong if you think there’s a conflict of interest in a condensed matter physicist believing that the current criminal justice system is biased against non-whites.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:01:21 No.11809308 Report

Quoted By: >>11809341 >>11809345

>>11809301
A scientist who is vocally against restrictions on CO2 output publishes a paper which concludes that climate change models have been consistently over predicting global warming for decades.

Is that okay? What would you think of his paper.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO hahahaiti.jpg, 153KiB, 717x813

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:06:07 No.11809317 Report

Quoted By: >>11809335 >>11809375

>>11808014
>>11809282
The problem here is the analogy beween political interests and monetary interests.
Scientists who get paid by industries have a clear and direct interest in lying, to get their money.
Scientists who have political ideas have a much more doubtful incentive to lie. There's no personal gain in it, and the gain for their political goal is shaky, as lies for a cause give angles of attack to the opponents. But more importantly, they formed their political ideas in the first place on a rational basis, believing that such facts cause such problems and that such actions bring such solution.. and if they had to lie about it they would have to admit to themselves first that their ideas are unsound, which would remove their motivation to lie for their sake.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:08:14 No.11809321 Report

Quoted By: >>11809361

>>11809303
>if you think there’s a conflict of interest in a condensed matter physicist believing that the current criminal justice system is biased against non-whites.
Sure, there are certainly scenarios where activism (even when it goes totally against all available evidence) is so far removed from the inquiry that it has no ability to taint the research.

But the issue here is that nobody gives a shit about a physicists opinion on race relations. But the people to whom politicians and the general public *do* listen, such as Black history or colonial studies professors *do* have a conflict of interest.
Just as any climate activist does have a conflict of interest when it comes to science.

If an avowed "racist" published a paper that suggested black people preffering segregation, what would your reaction be?

What if a colonial studies professor who publicly demands an "end to whiteness" publishes a study suggesting that segregation lead to extreme negative outcomes for black people?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:10:28 No.11809327 Report

Quoted By: >>11809388

>>11808366
this pretty much explains it, it's so sad as well because the work being put out by the social sciences is completely diluting the credible work that preceded it, making it almost impossible for an honest scholar to find the right path

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:14:17 No.11809335 Report

Quoted By: >>11809389

>>11809317
>Scientists who have political ideas have a much more doubtful incentive to lie.
I do think the 20th century has taught us that money becomes irrelevant the moment ideology becomes involved.

Just look at how much effort people are investing into politics, where any rational person knows their effort will have exactly zero impact.

>they formed their political ideas in the first place on a rational basis
Are you telling me that the colonial studies professor assumed that slavery was neither bad not good before Redding 50+ papers on the subject to finally come to the conclusion it was bad?
You can not be serious.
With absolute certainty I can tell you that most of the current Generation of climate science students are studying it *to combat climate change*.

>if they had to lie
You do not need to lie. The list of academic biases is basically endless, just as the ability for humans to rationalize their own actions.

SCIENTIST ARE NOT GODLIKE BEINGS. They are humans like you and me, prone to biases, errors and emotions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:17:16 No.11809341 Report

Quoted By: >>11809347

>>11809308
exactly the same as of a scientist vocally in favor of restrictions on CO2: I would probably stop reading there

scientist shouldn't by any mean be involved explicitly in policy or political activism, again: *in their same area of their research*

they might have ideas, even ideals. of course. but they should not push them publicly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:17:53 No.11809345 Report

Quoted By: >>11809400

>>11809308

It depends. Is that person against CO2 regulations because what their scientific study tells them? If that’s the case, then I just think they’re wrong. Perhaps there were flaws in their study that lead them to develop an opinion based on incomplete or incorrect information. This is why peer review is important.

But if the reverse is true - the scientist actively sabotaged/misconstrued their own study to reflect their own personal opinions, then there’s a major problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:18:37 No.11809347 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809341
Are you sure that you are the person I responded to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:22:34 No.11809361 Report

Quoted By: >>11809403

>>11809321
Hmm, I see your point. I don’t think this is unique to activism though. It’s just hard to tell whether or not experts’ opinions came before or after their expertise. Do their a priori opinions inappropriately inform their scientific direction, or does their scientific knowledge of the area appropriately inform their opinions on the issue?

I wouldn’t necessarily say there’s a “conflict of interest” afoot, just that in the former case, the individual makes a piss poor scientist. Letting your opinions shape your “knowledge” is just bad science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:25:05 No.11809375 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809317
>Scientists who have political ideas have a much more doubtful incentive to lie.
all scientists are people and hence have political ideas. that's no problem. the problem is the actual advocacy of those and policies in you specific area of research.

people in general has every incentive to lie to themselves. scientist should now this best than anyone. oneself is the easiest one to fool. all their scientific methodology stuff gravitates around this simple fact.
and when you have the power to influence or even dictate policy related however indirectly to your work, you are going to be corrupted sooner than anyone else. first of all because the scientist is convinced to be invulnerable to this. then because she is convinced to know more and better than anyone else. and on top of that, add the moral righteousness.
a scientist doing policy (*in her area of research*) is doomed, and will take all of us with her

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:27:32 No.11809388 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809327
>almost impossible for an honest scholar to find the right path
it was never easy. it will never be. just in different ways.
intellectual honesty has always been extremely difficult to gain and keep.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:27:37 No.11809389 Report

Quoted By: >>11809415

>>11809335
>With absolute certainty I can tell you that most of the current Generation of climate science students are studying it *to combat climate change*.
That's a strawman, you don't have stats. But whatever, what I was trying to say is not they they went into it without preconceived notions, but that they are mostly still looking for evidence, and are not willing to fake their results.

>You do not need to lie. The list of academic biases is basically endless
Yes. And of course you have to look out for the bias of the scientist in all cases.
But lies are the worst thing, and they're more commonly produced by scientists who want to get paid, than by scientists who want political change. So it's reasonable to be more wary of corruption than activism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:31:49 No.11809400 Report

Quoted By: >>11809443

>>11809345
>This is why peer review is important.
Have you read some studies on peer review? Literal sci-gen papers have gotten peer reviewed and even in credible institutions peer review fails to catch many errors.

Thankfully peer review seems to be ending, I think the first great step was when that absurd system together with traditional publishing was totally ignored when the first Millenium Problem was solved and just put on arxiv, like all fucking science should be.

>If that’s the case, then I just think they’re wrong.
Exactly that is my point. You think he is wrong.
And don't try to weasel your way out of this, your reaction was not to read his paper, look at what he actually did and evaluate *if he may actually be right*, but to assume that he was wrong, because you ideologically believe that he has to be wrong.

In the reverse case where the pro regulations scientist evaluated models and came to the conclusion that they were accurate your reaction would obviously not be to assume that he is wrong.
You wouldn't even have demanded close scrutiny to the claims.

You are a cancer that is killing science BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT EVALUATE SCIENCE WITHOUT CONNECTING IT TO YOUR IDEOLOGY. You are living proof that science and activism does not go well together.
All science needs to be put under the same standards, YOU HAVE TO BE IMPARTIAL claims must be looked at on their own and if your reaction to a paper which disagrees with you is "it is probably wrong", then you are genuinely a cancer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:34:14 No.11809403 Report

Quoted By: >>11809418

>>11809361
>Letting your opinions shape your “knowledge” is just bad science.
Science has to be impartial, that needs to be it's greatest goal.
Scientists have always struggled with this, even in the hardest science there was a lot of emotional resistance against ideas which ultimately won out.

In the end I do not trust any activist to be impartial about the things he is activisming about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:37:26 No.11809415 Report

Quoted By: >>11809438

>>11809389
>That's a strawman, you don't have stats.
No, that is not a strawman. Do you even know what that means?
It was a bad conjecture by mean, although I think, plausible.

> but that they are mostly still looking for evidence
Nobody looks for evidence for the things he thinks are true.

>But lies are the worst thing, and they're more commonly produced by scientists who want to get paid, than by scientists who want political change.
Do you have a study on that subject?

> So it's reasonable to be more wary of corruption than activism.
Even if we accept this. So what?
Corruption is bad, certainly I agree, but that does not mean activism is exonerated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:39:47 No.11809418 Report

Quoted By: >>11809430

>>11809403
>In the end I do not trust any activist to be impartial about the things he is activisming about.
But what if the research he did proves that activism is needed ?
Even the most perfectly impartial judge pronounces a sentence at the end of the trial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:45:25 No.11809430 Report

Quoted By: >>11809453 >>11809456

>>11809418
>But what if the research he did proves that activism is needed ?
Then I have no issue with him letting down the mantle of science and picking up activism.

The science is never settled any issue has a thousand facets and if he takes up activism I will not trust the science he produces.

Take a probabilistic example, maybe the scientist is 90% right about his findings, but his activism is based on 100% of his findings.
Now, do you trust him to backpedal on those 10%? They may not significantly harm his core message, but they will be an easy attack vector for his opponents.
So, do you trust him to correct those 10%?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:49:22 No.11809438 Report

Quoted By: >>11809451

>>11809415
>Do you even know what that means?
As far as I know, misrepresentating your target to better attack it.

>Nobody looks for evidence for the things he thinks are true.
That's not true :)

>Do you have a study on that subject?
Nope.

>Even if we accept this. So what?
So the analogy OP made between the two is incorrect, and asking for us to start distrusting activists as much as we do employees is unfounded.
Of course a critical mind is required to read any paper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:50:23 No.11809443 Report

Quoted By: >>11809463

>>11809400
>Thankfully peer review is ending.
Let me guess this straight - because peer review tends to be imperfect, it should be tossed out the window altogether?
Nirvana fallacy; opinion Descarted.

>Exactly my point. Don’t try to weasel your way out of this...
Based on how emotional you’re getting about my responses, you’re not in the mood for a rational discussion. But I’ll humor you.

> your reaction was not to read the paper
First, stop jumping to conclusions. You don’t know anything about me, let alone how I investigate scientific articles. That wasn’t part of your question, and it’s one hell of a Strawman to interpret my response as you fell fit (which, ironically, is the heart of the discussion we’re having in the first place). Second, this is a hypothetical - there’s no paper to read.

>you are a cancer that is...
I should have read your whole post before replying instead of paragraph-by-paragraph. Then I could have saved myself the time, because it’s clear at this point you don’t want to actually discuss the topic at hand - you have an opinion that you are unwilling to challenge. Again, that’s ironically the heart of the issue.

Good luck ever trying to convince people of your point of view with that attitude, let alone ever learning someone else’s point of view. If you’re going to accuse others of allowing their a priori opinions to infect their rational mind, at least have the decency to examine your own habits first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:52:39 No.11809451 Report

Quoted By: >>11809495

>>11809438
>As far as I know, misrepresentating your target to better attack it.
But I didn't. Especially not in that quote.

>That's not true :)
Then they are doing bad science. Falsification should be the goal of science.

>start distrusting activists as much as we do employees is unfounded.
I distrust both completely.
But again. I think ideology is the FAR stronger motivator.
Just imagine, how much money would you need to be payed to be a concentration camp guard.
$10.000 per hour? $100.000? $1.000.000? Certainly you wouldn't do it for the few pennies the krauts got...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:53:06 No.11809453 Report

Quoted By: >>11809469

>>11809430
>So, do you trust him to correct those 10%?
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and read his work before deciding.
>they will be an easy attack vector for his opponents.
Maybe, but being dishonest on those 10% will allow his opponents to cast doubts on the 90%.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:53:33 No.11809456 Report

Quoted By: >>11809474

>>11809430
So your view is that if someone is
A) Correct about a topic
B) Recognizes that they are correct and can prove they are correct
C) Has the power to convince others of what is correct
D) Chooses to exercise that power

Then they are no longer a scientist? Why? Is that not literally the entire point of publishing papers in science? Or am I not understanding a key point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:55:31 No.11809463 Report

Quoted By: >>11809470 >>11811393

>>11809443
>because peer review tends to be imperfect, it should be tossed out the window altogether?
No. That is a straw man.
Science should be open, rejecting or accepting papers because some guy didn't like them is absurd.

>First, stop jumping to conclusions.
I didn't. YOU said it.

>you have an opinion that you are unwilling to challenge.
Yes. I indeed believe that SCIENCE MUST BE IMPARTIAL. You may disagree with that and that is fine, but that is something no amount of evidence will change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:57:05 No.11809469 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809453
>but being dishonest on those 10% will allow his opponents to cast doubts on the 90%.
New to politics?

>I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and read his work before deciding.
Good idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:57:37 No.11809470 Report

Quoted By: >>11809477

>>11809463
You can’t scream “SCIENCE IS IMPARTIAL” and expect no one to question your rationality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:58:27 No.11809474 Report

Quoted By: >>11809498

>>11809456
>Then they are no longer a scientist?
Straw man.

>prove they are correct
Science can't prove things.
This should be philosophy of science 101...

>A) Correct about a topic
This is the exact opposite of my premise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 21:59:52 No.11809477 Report

Quoted By: >>11809530

>>11809470
>You can’t scream “SCIENCE IS IMPARTIAL”
Never said that.
What I said was prescriptive.

>expect no one to question your rationality.
I do infact expect that nobody challenges this extremely basic principle.
But here we are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:04:42 No.11809495 Report

Quoted By: >>11809504 >>11809511

>>11809451
> I think ideology is the FAR stronger motivator.
Depends for what and for whom. To kill and torture, maybe, though you still have mercenaries.
But to falsify research, ideology doesn't work well, because as I said you would lose your own belief in the process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:05:46 No.11809498 Report

Quoted By: >>11809519

>>11809474
>straw man
I asked if I didn’t understand something, I didn’t claim anything.

>science can’t prove things
Not in the same way mathematicians can, but I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Darwinian evolution is correct. I mean “prove” in this sense.

>this is the exact opposite of my premise
I don’t understand. Perhaps I don’t understand your premise, but the way I understood it was
“Science is never infallibly correct, and if a scientist takes up activism, they lose my respect”.
I am trying to understand why this is your view. Take Darwinian evolution, for example. You’re telling me that if an evolutionary biologist pushes for a state to replace teaching creationism in its classrooms with evolution, you’d lose respect for them? Can you explain why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:07:34 No.11809504 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809495
>you would lose your own belief in the process
For the love of God, please look up scientific biases.
I hate to post this, but you need to watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:09:33 No.11809511 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809495
>But to falsify research, ideology doesn't work well, because as I said you would lose your own belief in the process.
To explain this further, I don't mean that ideologues will always do good science. But their fault will more often be to abstain from questioning certain things than to give false results. As the reader, more than "can I trust what is written in there ?" you need to ask yourself "what is not written in there ?".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:14:27 No.11809519 Report

Quoted By: >>11809568

>>11809498
>You’re telling me that if an evolutionary biologist pushes for a state to replace teaching creationism in its classrooms with evolution, you’d lose respect for them?
Debate whether or not evolution is happening is like debating whether there is gravity.
This is a case where, counter intuitively, the research of the scientist is far removed from his activism. Even in the most "destructive" example the scientist might find a species which is not subject to evolution, unlikely, I know, but even so it would invalidate nothing.

But, maybe take a more controversial opinion. What if the same biologist does pro eugenics activism, e.g. he wants the state to sponsor high achieving parents if they have more kids (or offer poorer parents the option not to have kids, in exchange for money)?

Is one acceptable and the other abuse of science?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:17:39 No.11809530 Report

Quoted By: >>11809539

>>11809477
Listen, I’m done here. I’m tired of wasting my time and energy on people who can’t see when they’re arguing against their own premises.

If you want to go around thinking you “won the argument” with “logic and reason”, completely ignorant to the irony of how horribly you’re applying your barebones knowledge of logical fallacies to an argument about how illogical people can be, then go right ahead. If living in that illusion makes you happy, feel free to keep wasting your time shitting on others who are trying to talk to you without reservations, allthewhile slowly wasting away your existence. I don’t really care either way, I just decided to come here after a day of actually being a productive scientist (as productive as one can be under quarantine).

But all I’ll say on the matter is that if your genuine goal is to shitpost, you’ve accomplished it wonderfully. But if your goal is to convince others to develop respect for your well thought-out, rational argument, you will always fail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:22:01 No.11809539 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809530
I have to say that I never felt like you made an actual serious counter point.

I would have been okay with having my opinion invalidated if you actually had managed to tell me where I was wrong.

But here we are, I still believe that "science must be impartial", I can accept that you disagree, but I wouldn't know why. But if you really are a "scientist", which I doubt then I think you should seriously reevaluate your own biases.

I do not think I won anything, because I am as dumb as I was when this discussion began and your irrelevant rantings did nothing to sway my opinion.
Have a good night.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:28:07 No.11809558 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
No, you can. It's just not without it's consequence.
If I'm an employer of Marlboro's PR, I'll hire someone who believes smoking is bad but not if they act in contradiction to their position.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:31:00 No.11809568 Report

Quoted By: >>11809596

>>11809519
>is one acceptable and another an abuse of science?

I could see it going either way, probably because ethics is not an experimental science.

On the one hand, evolution is as close to scientific fact as the term “fact” can be applied to science. Teaching others what is true and what is not is generally considered acceptable.
On the other hand, eugenics is a field that could be used for either “good” or “bad” things.

The two aren’t totally comparable, but still, I’ll answer your question. I think neither are “abuses of science” any more than telling someone that plants need water to survive is an abuse of science.

There is no correct answer.

What do *you* think though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:40:07 No.11809596 Report

Quoted By: >>11809613

>>11809568
Evolution can be used for evil as well, obviously, as eugenics is just an application of evolution.

Truth, while noble, might not always be beneficial.

>What do *you* think though?
As I said. I think in both cases the scientist and his research are far enough removed from his activism in order that it doesn't taint him in any way.

Also, you do not need the scientist, he has no special knowledge and most of his impact would come from his authority. To be clearer, you do not need a scientist to reaffirm to Congress that evolution is indeed true, everybody already knows, or has an absurd stance against it.

But I do think there are examples, especially outside of the hard sciences, where activism makes impartiality basically impossible. Especially when it comes to issue where government requires scientific input.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jun 2020 22:46:41 No.11809613 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809596
>examples...where activism makes impartiality basically impossible

Like when, and how are you able to unambiguously distinguish between when there’s a conflict and when there’s not? Are there any gray area cases where you are unsure?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Jun 2020 14:25:17 No.11811393 Report

Quoted By:

>>11809463
>SCIENCE MUST BE IMPARTIAL
nope. science always tries to be on one side and only one: truth
and that's why any aspiring apprentice of scientist should be extremely aware of all traps. in particular, conflicts of interest.
that's why if you are trying really and honestly hard to find something in some area, you should stay away from politics related to that

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO climate.jpg, 279KiB, 950x559

Anonymous Thu 18 Jun 2020 14:41:37 No.11811428 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
>be me
>I like science, I've seen enough tv to know it is cool
>I'm kind of retarded, but it is not difficult to get a degree as long as you do not attempt string theory and/or haaaeardvear or the like
>don't try either solid state or industry related
>fail also at other applied or medical variations
>biophys, astrophys, meteo etc are ok, but climate is the rage now
>family impressed, gf horny
>I get respect now
>I belong to the 1% now: 1% coauthorship of papers, 1% knowledge, 1% contribution
>that's great dilution of responsability
>but, I get 99% support for whatever I say, write or do
>major on my little town now
>the shit I do for research is not even chyme but everybody is convinced it is powerful
>what can I do? they cannot all be wrong
>my problem: unlike my peers, I do not really believe in it, I feel like impostor syndrome
>I hear it's kinda common
should I stay or should I go?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 095785674.png, 383KiB, 678x736

Anonymous Fri 19 Jun 2020 00:13:19 No.11813043 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
> you cannot be a credible anthropologist and an open racist.
What if you started out as a non-racist but researching the subject in question turned you into one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Jun 2020 01:53:07 No.11813299 Report

Quoted By:

>>11808014
>you cannot be a scientist and an activist
Philosophically this is true, as you point out it poisons your works.
Consider this at a larger level. A scientist can not generate hypotheses from data accumulation, only theory. Trying to generate hypotheses from data is doing it backwards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Jun 2020 02:05:26 No.11813325 Report

Quoted By: >>11814833

>>11808014
pic is not related
fuck your cringey upskirt bullshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Jun 2020 14:14:16 No.11814833 Report

Quoted By:

>>11813325
I think it refers to women studies, race and grievances studies, climate science
all that crap

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches