4 ms·

What a strange thing this Heterodox Academy is. They bemoan the lack of political diversity (however you define that, they don't, seems they leave it an exerci

What a strange thing this Heterodox Academy is. They bemoan the lack of political diversity (however you define that, they don't, seems they leave it an exercise to the reader) in the Social Sciences, and then they proceed to list Judith Curry, a climate change skeptic, amongst their members. Can someone make a convincing case they don't have an agenda to sell?

ams6110 11y ago
Seems that they define it pretty clearly: has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically.
pavpanchekha 11y ago
Yes. The main organizer, Jonathan Haidt, is a well-regard sociologist. He's been crusading for more political diversity in science for... years? A decade? He has, of course, been doing very impressive science as well; check out his book, “The Righteous Mind”, if you're interested in understanding how people talk about morality, for example. Like it or not, climatologists sceptical of climate change should get their voices heard, just like Levin should be allowed to doubt the possibility of quantum computers, AI researchers should be allowed to doubt the possibility of general AI, and so on. They must, of course, conduct their science to the standards of their field, but the fact that they can argue for ideas not widely held in their field makes that field stronger, not weaker. Science isn't a battle for consensus, or even a battle for getting the largest agreement on a truth; it is a battle for the truth itself, any discussion and conversation, within a process that enforces good faith and good epistemology, only helps.
- aristus 11y ago
  As for people with heterodox views who "conduct their science to the standards of their field", I suggest reading this very amusing/disturbing review of results in paranormal research. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou... "Two experimenters in the same laboratory, using the same apparatus, having no contact with the subjects except to introduce themselves and flip a few switches – and whether one or the other was there that day completely altered the result. For a good time, watch the gymnastics they have to do to in the paper to make this sound sufficiently sensical to even get published. This is the only journal article I’ve ever read where, in the part of the Discussion section where you’re supposed to propose possible reasons for your findings, both authors suggest maybe their co-author hacked into the computer and altered the results."
  - pavpanchekha 11y ago
    Yeah, I've seen that. I would posit that paranormal researchers with unusual political beliefs are no less an asset to their field than those with normal political beliefs. (How much of an asset the field as a whole is is for you to understand.)
- deciplex 11y ago
  Is there a way to conclusively prove that any time spent further considering an idea is a waste, and if so, should that idea be tossed out? Failing that, if you can show that an idea is almost certainly wrong, is it appropriate to almost never condescend to discuss it? It's important to have a good answer for this stuff. Time is an important resource. If we spend 1000 years answering questions that should have been solved in 50, we have failed at science.

ams6110 11y ago

Seems that they define it pretty clearly: has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically.

pavpanchekha 11y ago

Yes. The main organizer, Jonathan Haidt, is a well-regard sociologist. He's been crusading for more political diversity in science for... years? A decade? He has, of course, been doing very impressive science as well; check out his book, “The Righteous Mind”, if you're interested in understanding how people talk about morality, for example. Like it or not, climatologists sceptical of climate change should get their voices heard, just like Levin should be allowed to doubt the possibility of quantum computers, AI researchers should be allowed to doubt the possibility of general AI, and so on. They must, of course, conduct their science to the standards of their field, but the fact that they can argue for ideas not widely held in their field makes that field stronger, not weaker. Science isn't a battle for consensus, or even a battle for getting the largest agreement on a truth; it is a battle for the truth itself, any discussion and conversation, within a process that enforces good faith and good epistemology, only helps.

aristus 11y ago
As for people with heterodox views who "conduct their science to the standards of their field", I suggest reading this very amusing/disturbing review of results in paranormal research. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou... "Two experimenters in the same laboratory, using the same apparatus, having no contact with the subjects except to introduce themselves and flip a few switches – and whether one or the other was there that day completely altered the result. For a good time, watch the gymnastics they have to do to in the paper to make this sound sufficiently sensical to even get published. This is the only journal article I’ve ever read where, in the part of the Discussion section where you’re supposed to propose possible reasons for your findings, both authors suggest maybe their co-author hacked into the computer and altered the results."
- pavpanchekha 11y ago
  Yeah, I've seen that. I would posit that paranormal researchers with unusual political beliefs are no less an asset to their field than those with normal political beliefs. (How much of an asset the field as a whole is is for you to understand.)
deciplex 11y ago
Is there a way to conclusively prove that any time spent further considering an idea is a waste, and if so, should that idea be tossed out? Failing that, if you can show that an idea is almost certainly wrong, is it appropriate to almost never condescend to discuss it? It's important to have a good answer for this stuff. Time is an important resource. If we spend 1000 years answering questions that should have been solved in 50, we have failed at science.