We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks(blogs.scientificamerican.com)
blogs.scientificamerican.com
We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-must-defend-science-in-the-face-of-political-attacks/
126 comments
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 muddling of the waters is complete.
Your post advocates for false equivalence, in a somewhat indirect manner. We get to "all science is politicized". And then the muddling of the waters is complete.
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.
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.
It can be difficult to predict whether a given research topic will be useful or not in the future. It's easy when something is developed with an application in mind. It can be far more difficult for "pure math". There are plenty of examples of math that we don't have an application for today becoming very relevant in the future. For example:
- Fast Fourier transform (Gauss discovered and didn't publish it b/c he thought it wasn't very useful. Others rediscovered it later.) - Number theory was considered useless for a long time, now it's used for cryptography
- Fast Fourier transform (Gauss discovered and didn't publish it b/c he thought it wasn't very useful. Others rediscovered it later.) - Number theory was considered useless for a long time, now it's used for cryptography
Mathematics is surprisingly useful. You've used your credit card online -- where'd that encryption algorithm come from? "Useless" math. You've booked a flight online -- where'd that schedule come from? Uh, math again: all that optimization, those traveling salesman problems.
Right now I'm doing all sorts of work studying risk in financial networks, studying public health, all using math that was considered "pure" just 20 years ago. Actually, at the moment I'm looking up papers on the tropical geometry of deep learning.
Certainly I realize society has decided math is not the most valuable thing, which is why I'll be seeking to do "machine learning" instead in the next year or so, rather than education & research (useless for anything in the real world!). I'm sure I'll add more to humanity when I'm optimizing for ad clicks :)
Right now I'm doing all sorts of work studying risk in financial networks, studying public health, all using math that was considered "pure" just 20 years ago. Actually, at the moment I'm looking up papers on the tropical geometry of deep learning.
Certainly I realize society has decided math is not the most valuable thing, which is why I'll be seeking to do "machine learning" instead in the next year or so, rather than education & research (useless for anything in the real world!). I'm sure I'll add more to humanity when I'm optimizing for ad clicks :)
I didn't argue all math is useless. I argued a lot of it is
Something may look useless now, but turn out not to be useless.
Something might be useless now, but further mathematics based on it might be worth billions.
Something might be useless now, but further mathematics based on it might be worth billions.
> 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.
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.
The Trump Interior Department abruptly canceled a study into coal mining's effects on the health of nearby residents. An Interior Department official explained the decision this way: "Science was a Democrat thing"
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.
The point is to raise the role of epistemology in decision making where it is possible. That's all.
"Massive spending programs without clearly-defined revenue streams."
Science doesn't have "revenue streams". Basic research doesn't have "revenue streams".
Science doesn't have "revenue streams". Basic research doesn't have "revenue streams".
> science needs to be politicized the right way. Diversity initiatives.
No thank you. I don't need the left telling me that there are 30 genders nor the right telling me that climate change doesn't exist. There is no "right" politicization.
No thank you. I don't need the left telling me that there are 30 genders nor the right telling me that climate change doesn't exist. There is no "right" politicization.
Spot on. Science needs to be data-driven, accurate and absolutely without politics.
Anything otherwise, and we lose credibility and a good chunk of audience for political reasons.
Don't weaponize Science! Keep it pure, keep it true.
Anything otherwise, and we lose credibility and a good chunk of audience for political reasons.
Don't weaponize Science! Keep it pure, keep it true.
I do not think author of this piece has particularly good intentions at all.
Good intentions would have included self-reflection, non-partisan discussion of alternative views, and so on.
A simple review of the funding sources of The Union of Concerned scientists letters, this piece is based on, explains the motives (eg 20mln for linking man-made climate affects and hurricanes).
https://buyingbias.org/2017/09/20/457/
Good intentions would have included self-reflection, non-partisan discussion of alternative views, and so on.
A simple review of the funding sources of The Union of Concerned scientists letters, this piece is based on, explains the motives (eg 20mln for linking man-made climate affects and hurricanes).
https://buyingbias.org/2017/09/20/457/
One 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 experimentation isn’t going to answer that question.)
Yes. I think it's an easy trap to use the word "Science" to defend political decisions. It seems an unassailable argument "Who would reject Science?"
Don't you believe. You won't convince people your politics are rational - you'll convince people science is arbitrary.
Don't you believe. You won't convince people your politics are rational - you'll convince people science is arbitrary.
When life begins is clearly a scientific question. Perhaps you mean the question of when society should recognize and protect personhood?
Afterlife? You're talking nonsense.
This article is dog shit. "We must defend science against extremist political attacks by being political extremists." Their solution is to scream the loudest. People like this are incredibly tiring to deal with and offer nothing practical.
If 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 pointing their fingers at.
Climate Science denialist PR campaigns by Koch Industries are politicization, and it feels filthy wrong that we're overwhelmingly pointing fingers at the scientists and grassroots actors responding to these campaigns instead of the groups publishing and hosting the lies.
Climate Science denialist PR campaigns by Koch Industries are politicization, and it feels filthy wrong that we're overwhelmingly pointing fingers at the scientists and grassroots actors responding to these campaigns instead of the groups publishing and hosting the lies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are many ways around global warming, of which current Democrat policy is just one. Republicans are being silly by not proposing alternative approaches to this problem, agreed, but they absolutely can.
More specifically, to the republican party, climate change does not exist. Therefore, any climate change research is politically anti-republican (why would you research something that doesn't even exist?)
In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a Chinese hoax."
This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just "deal with it?"
In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a Chinese hoax."
This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just "deal with it?"
That can be construed as political but also as non-political.
Conducting scientific experiments and publishing their results absent government funding.
>it feels filthy wrong
Fortunately science is about facts, not feelings.
Fortunately science is about facts, not feelings.
Spot on mate. Not only a sharp and valid point, but also made me laugh.
Text interpretation should also be valued, as well as the importance of "not completely twisting another person's comment to suit your own views". Your comment extrapolates wildly from the one you responded too, and thats AMAZINGLY POLITICAL AND ALSO DISHONEST.
*ps sorry for any English mistake, as it's not my first language.
*ps sorry for any English mistake, as it's not my first language.
> 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.
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.
The agenda here is very clearly left wing politics.
I'm personally rather confused as to how a diversity of ability is useful. A diversity of abilities perhaps, but I don't see how having an incompetent in the loop is supposed to help.
That stuck out to me as well, but reading it charitably I suppose it refers to people with disabilities, not to people who are rubbish at science.
> 47 percent of scientists at the National Park Service and 35 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency report they had been asked to omit the phrase "climate change" from their work.
I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists to do that did it for the same reason I dislike many (but certainly not all) blockchain initiatives: it has been bolted on a something where it didn't belong just to "profit" (or profit in the case of blockchains) from something that is hyped by the media.
Climate change is serious, but it detracts from important work when people are abusing those words to get funding for other unrelated research.
I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists to do that did it for the same reason I dislike many (but certainly not all) blockchain initiatives: it has been bolted on a something where it didn't belong just to "profit" (or profit in the case of blockchains) from something that is hyped by the media.
Climate change is serious, but it detracts from important work when people are abusing those words to get funding for other unrelated research.
I have to say, parks and the environment are, ah, pretty impacted by climate... Why do you think that discussion of climate is "bolted on" to parks/environment unnecessarily?
If you read carefully you might notice that I don't say everyone does, but I fully expect scientists to be smart enough to add those magic words to anything they want to study.
Source: I'm an engineer, I fully expect scientists to outperform me in this ;-)
Source: I'm an engineer, I fully expect scientists to outperform me in this ;-)
"I'm an engineer"
"I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists"
Is guessing what engineers do now? I hope I never use anything you worked on.
"I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists"
Is guessing what engineers do now? I hope I never use anything you worked on.
Fermi estimates are also known as "guessing with extra steps", but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.
So the solution to bias in the sciences is to double down on bias? Make sure only the bias you support is present?
> Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D. is a marine biologist and founder of Ocean Collectiv, a consulting firm for conservation solutions grounded in social justice.
Literally a think tank trying to advance scientific policies based on politics.
> Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D. is a marine biologist and founder of Ocean Collectiv, a consulting firm for conservation solutions grounded in social justice.
Literally a think tank trying to advance scientific policies based on politics.
There's a difference between choosing which areas of science to support based on non-scientific criteria such as your politics (which is what it sounds like she is doing), and trying to stop science from happening or supporting anti-science because your politics are not consistent with science.
Take conservation. There might be several ways to approach a given conservation problem, all of which are scientifically sound. It is then a political question which to use. Her answer to that question would presumably be one that advances social justice...but unless she would also falsely claim that others are not scientifically valid, or would also try to stop research into the other methods, her position and actions are not a political attack on science.
Take conservation. There might be several ways to approach a given conservation problem, all of which are scientifically sound. It is then a political question which to use. Her answer to that question would presumably be one that advances social justice...but unless she would also falsely claim that others are not scientifically valid, or would also try to stop research into the other methods, her position and actions are not a political attack on science.
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.
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.
So one starts with 1 point. Someone clicks downvote, it goes to 0 and the comment disappears, right? That's too fast IMHO.
Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?
Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?
> Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?
I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way.
But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo chamber (at least, for certain topics).
I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way.
But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo chamber (at least, for certain topics).
I have a feeling it is too late. The train has left the station on this one.
Forgive 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?
Is there something new I'm not understanding?
When someone else does it, it's Politics. When We do it, it's Science.
Science, and especially certain scientific conclusions have very obviously become politicized. Yes, that's unfortunate but it is the state of affairs.
Perhaps the problem is that scientists themselves are increasingly having to fight their own political battles because their elected politicians can not or will not.
Perhaps the problem is that scientists themselves are increasingly having to fight their own political battles because their elected politicians can not or will not.
>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 workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views.
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 workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views.
I'm more concerned what they mean by diversity of ability. Is that just another term for physically disabled people, or are we seriously at the point where only having smart people in the sciences is offensive?
> 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 workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views
In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right.
However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scientists might be important because the members of the general public and the politicians that represent them are probably more likely to listen to scientists who are like them.
In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right.
However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scientists might be important because the members of the general public and the politicians that represent them are probably more likely to listen to scientists who are like them.
BrainlingPdx(4)
>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 something else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.
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 something else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.
fromthestart(1)
[deleted]
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 with citations of scientific studies. I'm sure he would agree science must be defended...
Defend science, unless you disagree with its outcome!
Exactly.
If you want to defend science, a good place to start would be to refrain from defending faith.
When 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 straightforward reason; the range of outcomes that emerge from defeatism are universally bad. The range of outcomes that arise from a worldview that everything can be fixed stem from the bad to the okay to the somewhat good. The range of results that are possible through action outweigh those of inaction. So what's the point in giving up?
The second bit is the science is being used in such and such ways bit. This reminds me of the debates I've had with people who have a hardline view of individual freedoms and clauses in the constitution. I often like to tell them that the constitution is a guiding document, not a suicide pact.
Ideally, we should live by the idealized impartiality and objectivity that Scientists should have while interacting with the world. The idea that Scientists should be in the ivory tower, away from the grime of humanity and refraining from commenting on matters that connect and are of import with the body politic. People will mention gender, sexuality, climate change, abortion etc as these pivotal points where science can't give the answers and therefore science must ixnay and look away.
But I would like to raise the idea of science Carl Sagan had. Science as a candle in the dark. Sagan would talk at length about the development of science in ancient societies, and how unconnected these developments were from the lives of the population. Heron of Alexandria created a steam engine in the ancient world, but he never applied to alleviate the burdens of humans. It was used as a curiosity for the powerful. To quote his immortal words, "The permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not."
Why shouldn't we use our insight into the human condition and the broader perspective science offers us to inform our moral choices? Why should scientists bind themselves into an idealized suicide pact when they're under assault? Why can't scientists bring down the fire from Olympus and share it with the populace?
Our problem stems from the fires of ignorance and the idea that someone's ignorance is equal to someone else's research or knowledge. Why can't scientists use the scientific method to investigate it and share their perspective with the world?
Science tends to give people something akin to the overseer effect; why shouldn't that be shared with the world, if it moves us just a bit in the right direction?
Is the potential for misuse great? Yes, but what's the alternative? Stagnation? An absence of the humanizing presence of science in the great moral debates? Why should that be the realm of charlatans and the working of mitochondria that of science? Why can't scientists connect the two and work to illuminate the darkness?
The first is harmful and wrong for a straightforward reason; the range of outcomes that emerge from defeatism are universally bad. The range of outcomes that arise from a worldview that everything can be fixed stem from the bad to the okay to the somewhat good. The range of results that are possible through action outweigh those of inaction. So what's the point in giving up?
The second bit is the science is being used in such and such ways bit. This reminds me of the debates I've had with people who have a hardline view of individual freedoms and clauses in the constitution. I often like to tell them that the constitution is a guiding document, not a suicide pact.
Ideally, we should live by the idealized impartiality and objectivity that Scientists should have while interacting with the world. The idea that Scientists should be in the ivory tower, away from the grime of humanity and refraining from commenting on matters that connect and are of import with the body politic. People will mention gender, sexuality, climate change, abortion etc as these pivotal points where science can't give the answers and therefore science must ixnay and look away.
But I would like to raise the idea of science Carl Sagan had. Science as a candle in the dark. Sagan would talk at length about the development of science in ancient societies, and how unconnected these developments were from the lives of the population. Heron of Alexandria created a steam engine in the ancient world, but he never applied to alleviate the burdens of humans. It was used as a curiosity for the powerful. To quote his immortal words, "The permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not."
Why shouldn't we use our insight into the human condition and the broader perspective science offers us to inform our moral choices? Why should scientists bind themselves into an idealized suicide pact when they're under assault? Why can't scientists bring down the fire from Olympus and share it with the populace?
Our problem stems from the fires of ignorance and the idea that someone's ignorance is equal to someone else's research or knowledge. Why can't scientists use the scientific method to investigate it and share their perspective with the world?
Science tends to give people something akin to the overseer effect; why shouldn't that be shared with the world, if it moves us just a bit in the right direction?
Is the potential for misuse great? Yes, but what's the alternative? Stagnation? An absence of the humanizing presence of science in the great moral debates? Why should that be the realm of charlatans and the working of mitochondria that of science? Why can't scientists connect the two and work to illuminate the darkness?
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.
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.
Because that's not what science is. Science is the study of physical objects via empirical experiments. If you're talking about morality or ethics, those aren't physical objects and you can't make empirical experiments about them.
Kind of funny that many of the impassioned pleas to respect science are often pleading for support of things that are not scientific.
The benefits of diversity is the Left’s pseudoscience, so I can’t take an article seriously that so prominently features it. There is an unbelievable amount of grift involved in getting a government scientific grant these days - major awards must have a D&I component and I know from personal experience it’s largely wasted.
The author only wants conservatives purged. I want climate deniers and diversity sycophants alike purged from the scientific apparatus.
The author only wants conservatives purged. I want climate deniers and diversity sycophants alike purged from the scientific apparatus.
Science 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.
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.
SciAm 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. And is a waste of effort.
Perhaps the alternative is our own media empire.
Fox News was run at a loss its first decade. Something like $500m/yr is spent, at a loss, on the right wing noise machine. All those popular alt-right sites have patrons.
Does the left have anything comparable? In scale and gumption?
I don't know if it'd work. Reason ain't sexy. Versus the outrage and fear factory. But I'd like to try something new.
--
Also, impartiality and objectivity is a trap. Just tell your story sincerely, unapologetically. The opponents will blather regardless, so don't share your soapbox.
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. And is a waste of effort.
Perhaps the alternative is our own media empire.
Fox News was run at a loss its first decade. Something like $500m/yr is spent, at a loss, on the right wing noise machine. All those popular alt-right sites have patrons.
Does the left have anything comparable? In scale and gumption?
I don't know if it'd work. Reason ain't sexy. Versus the outrage and fear factory. But I'd like to try something new.
--
Also, impartiality and objectivity is a trap. Just tell your story sincerely, unapologetically. The opponents will blather regardless, so don't share your soapbox.
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?
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.
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.
I think it depends on how you define "left-wing". Some consider the "woke capitalism" of corporate media and SV to be "left", others consider only an explicitly anti-capitalist and pro-labor stance to be left.
[flagged]
For me it will forever be weird to run across internet comments talking about my inner thought processes. I don't recognize myself in what you say. Are you sure you're right?
Thanks for the reply.
I am often not correct in recognizing even my own cognitive biases. So, of course, I do not know what you think. To answer your question otherwise, would be pretentious.
But I am certain, that I feel the unfair bias and censorship against the conservative points of view. In both: what stories are allowed to be posted, and how the comments are moderated.
I am also certain, that would feel much happier with the quality of discussion -- if divisive topics with just a passing relation to modern technology and without substantial evidence based analysis -- would be left to other forums.
Again, thank you for your reply (I did not expect it, I only expected to be flagged again). And thank you for personal time and effort to moderate HN.
I am often not correct in recognizing even my own cognitive biases. So, of course, I do not know what you think. To answer your question otherwise, would be pretentious.
But I am certain, that I feel the unfair bias and censorship against the conservative points of view. In both: what stories are allowed to be posted, and how the comments are moderated.
I am also certain, that would feel much happier with the quality of discussion -- if divisive topics with just a passing relation to modern technology and without substantial evidence based analysis -- would be left to other forums.
Again, thank you for your reply (I did not expect it, I only expected to be flagged again). And thank you for personal time and effort to moderate HN.
Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output.
Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.
Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.
Would it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new reports are filed.
The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)
The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)
> What should we do now? :)
I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.
A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.
Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.
At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.
This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.
So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.
If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.
A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.
Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.
At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.
This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.
So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.
If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
I'd like to see links to thoughtful, reasonable comments that have been flagged or downvoted into obscurity. As many such links as you (or anyone) can possibly come up with, I'd like to look at them. Best to email [email protected] because this thread is sinking low in the feed now.
Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm not saying it follows that things aren't biased—that would be a non sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical across that divide.
Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm not saying it follows that things aren't biased—that would be a non sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical across that divide.
I appreciate your response. I don't expect you'll see this reply, since it's so old, but just in case:
> Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?
Generally, yes, of course.
> Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is biased.
In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g. because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.
Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN is biased against their political orientation.
But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think this--I think it's a fair observation.
And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN is biased to the left.
> Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?
Generally, yes, of course.
> Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is biased.
In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g. because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.
Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN is biased against their political orientation.
But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think this--I think it's a fair observation.
And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN is biased to the left.
I think there are 4 categories of topics
1) ideological (including political (globa/local), or religious
2) technical
3) personal (meaning focus is, specifically, on subjective position)
4) moral (meaning, focus is on subjective, but relatable at a group/society/era level)
Problem is with ( 1 ), and may be ( 4 ).
My personal view, is that if HN is to allow new submissions where (1) and (4) are present. Those submissions should go through a different flow, than (2) and (3).
These submissions should be marked as such, then reviewed by a moderator, to see if it fits the broader category of HN-allowed submissions.
And then, if the submission passes moderation, the discussion on those posts cannot follow same upvote/downvote model as ( 2 ) or (3). Because regular upvote/downvote model puts at disadvantage minority view.
-- --
WRT your question > Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor
Yes, I think selection of submissions, downvotes and flags favors disproportionally to anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male rhetoric.
I particular share a view of environment issues, though I favor non-global, trade-based solutions. So I, personally do remember incidents where my submissions or comments were downvoted on that topic.
Interestingly, on more political conservative forums, that I participate on -- when I argue a pro-environment position -- I get some pushback, sometime ridicule -- but my comments never 'grayed out' or flagged.
-- Sorry for a long, response. But yes. I favor particular ideology and moral stance. Everybody has those positions.
I also appreciate, particularly, flexibility of mind and personal ability to adjust to something different if circumstances or new information dictates that.
I have yet to find any discussion that would cause me a shift in my positions on (1) or (4). I suspect this is same with other people, but being tested by questions, or telling others what I think -- is engaging, nevertheless.
Another thing, I noticed, that I tend to use 'reciprocal' tone. So the actual tone would depend on some selection/aggregation of other folks tone.
My overall complaint, if I may call it that, is flagging/graying out expressions that are conservative-leaning.
1) ideological (including political (globa/local), or religious
2) technical
3) personal (meaning focus is, specifically, on subjective position)
4) moral (meaning, focus is on subjective, but relatable at a group/society/era level)
Problem is with ( 1 ), and may be ( 4 ).
My personal view, is that if HN is to allow new submissions where (1) and (4) are present. Those submissions should go through a different flow, than (2) and (3).
These submissions should be marked as such, then reviewed by a moderator, to see if it fits the broader category of HN-allowed submissions.
And then, if the submission passes moderation, the discussion on those posts cannot follow same upvote/downvote model as ( 2 ) or (3). Because regular upvote/downvote model puts at disadvantage minority view.
-- --
WRT your question > Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor
Yes, I think selection of submissions, downvotes and flags favors disproportionally to anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male rhetoric.
I particular share a view of environment issues, though I favor non-global, trade-based solutions. So I, personally do remember incidents where my submissions or comments were downvoted on that topic.
Interestingly, on more political conservative forums, that I participate on -- when I argue a pro-environment position -- I get some pushback, sometime ridicule -- but my comments never 'grayed out' or flagged.
-- Sorry for a long, response. But yes. I favor particular ideology and moral stance. Everybody has those positions.
I also appreciate, particularly, flexibility of mind and personal ability to adjust to something different if circumstances or new information dictates that.
I have yet to find any discussion that would cause me a shift in my positions on (1) or (4). I suspect this is same with other people, but being tested by questions, or telling others what I think -- is engaging, nevertheless.
Another thing, I noticed, that I tend to use 'reciprocal' tone. So the actual tone would depend on some selection/aggregation of other folks tone.
My overall complaint, if I may call it that, is flagging/graying out expressions that are conservative-leaning.
The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be politicized the right way. Diversity initiatives. Massive spending programs without clearly-defined revenue streams. Protecting scientists from "political interference," a term which is impossible to define without eliminating the ability to filter junk science. Everyone needs to sign off on this or the bad things will happen.
I'm sure the author's intentions were good, but restoring public confidence in science means that scientists themselves need to take a good look in the mirror.