7 ms·

Ideological homogeneity isn't the starting condition it's the ending condition, the achieved goal. How could you see that homogeneity and then say "this could b

Ideological homogeneity isn't the starting condition it's the ending condition, the achieved goal. How could you see that homogeneity and then say "this could be an issue only in an incredibly tribal ideological environment" and not realize that's exactly what academia is and has been for a long time? Have you not read your Saul Alinsky? There's a reason his devotee is the top prez nominee (Clinton). Climate conferences, academia, these are pure political spheres; you CANNOT rock the boat before tenure. With the net now, nothing is under the radar, so you will have to resign yourself to a lower tier placement, but it might be a great spot for you since politics determines school ranking.

striking 11y ago
> Climate conferences, academia Are you sure the two are exactly alike? I realize there's a lot of soft science that's ridiculous, but it's generally accepted that global warming exists.
- fleitz 11y ago
  It's fairly well understood that most organizations exist to perpetuate themselves. If GW doesn't exist a whole tonne of organization cease to exist, just as if GW does exist a whole tonne of organizations cease to exist. Oddly, you'll find that organizations opinions on GW align fairly well with their source of funding. GW is a hugely political topic, and in my estimation has little to do with hard science anymore.
  - jolux 11y ago
    You've provided no evidence of anything you've laid out here and you're trying to disprove a theory agreed upon by 99% of scientists with indirect arguments about their source of funding. Why exactly should I believe you? I'd love to hear more about all of these points but find it hard to trust them currently.
    - midwest1 11y ago
      I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.
      - nkurz 11y ago
        Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you might need to follow the links for context: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting
        midwest1 11y ago
        It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers. ;) I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80, and which IPCC model, if any of them, that consensus includes. I'm going to have to catch up on his blog.
        jolux 11y ago
        And here's an entry point as to why he's wrong: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony-deniers-deny.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony...
      - jolux 11y ago
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust....
        midwest1 11y ago
  - striking 11y ago
    I see. I don't think I caught the nuance of your point until you put a spotlight on it. I do very much agree that spending motivates most "do-good" groups more than simply doing good does. In that sense, I agree that global warming and other such causes are very political. That indeed is a similarity between politics and academia.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  The point is the political goal is so important to the true believers that dissent must be silenced, mot accomodated, not that global warming is an ideological hallucination.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I'll raise you academic homogeneity with political autarchy. How influential is the Left - not the Democrats, but the popular Left - on Wall St, in corporate board rooms, in Congress, in the Senate, in the US military, in econ schools, on MBA courses, in US intelligence, in police management, and in foreign policy? If you want parity of influence, let's see it there first. Because I'm really not seeing anything that looks even slightly left-wing in any of the above - at least not by European ideas of what the Left is. And we did invent it after all, so we have some idea what it's supposed to look like.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  Diversity training? DHS not allowed to look at the social media of the San Bernardino shooters when they were entering, where they would have seen threats? Polls showing growing discord in the military between the right majority and the left leadership? Wall St. and corporate support for abortion? Clinton's explicit inspiration from Alinsky? US support for Hamas / Muslim Brotherhood / Hawai'ian Separatists? Nobody wins everything unless they treat their opponents like Melians.

striking 11y ago

> Climate conferences, academia Are you sure the two are exactly alike? I realize there's a lot of soft science that's ridiculous, but it's generally accepted that global warming exists.

fleitz 11y ago
It's fairly well understood that most organizations exist to perpetuate themselves. If GW doesn't exist a whole tonne of organization cease to exist, just as if GW does exist a whole tonne of organizations cease to exist. Oddly, you'll find that organizations opinions on GW align fairly well with their source of funding. GW is a hugely political topic, and in my estimation has little to do with hard science anymore.
- jolux 11y ago
  You've provided no evidence of anything you've laid out here and you're trying to disprove a theory agreed upon by 99% of scientists with indirect arguments about their source of funding. Why exactly should I believe you? I'd love to hear more about all of these points but find it hard to trust them currently.
  - midwest1 11y ago
    I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.
    - nkurz 11y ago
      Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you might need to follow the links for context: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting
      - midwest1 11y ago
        It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers. ;) I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80, and which IPCC model, if any of them, that consensus includes. I'm going to have to catch up on his blog.
      - jolux 11y ago
        And here's an entry point as to why he's wrong: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony-deniers-deny.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony...
    - jolux 11y ago
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust....
      - midwest1 11y ago
- striking 11y ago
  I see. I don't think I caught the nuance of your point until you put a spotlight on it. I do very much agree that spending motivates most "do-good" groups more than simply doing good does. In that sense, I agree that global warming and other such causes are very political. That indeed is a similarity between politics and academia.
daodedickinson 11y ago
The point is the political goal is so important to the true believers that dissent must be silenced, mot accomodated, not that global warming is an ideological hallucination.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I'll raise you academic homogeneity with political autarchy. How influential is the Left - not the Democrats, but the popular Left - on Wall St, in corporate board rooms, in Congress, in the Senate, in the US military, in econ schools, on MBA courses, in US intelligence, in police management, and in foreign policy? If you want parity of influence, let's see it there first. Because I'm really not seeing anything that looks even slightly left-wing in any of the above - at least not by European ideas of what the Left is. And we did invent it after all, so we have some idea what it's supposed to look like.

daodedickinson 11y ago
Diversity training? DHS not allowed to look at the social media of the San Bernardino shooters when they were entering, where they would have seen threats? Polls showing growing discord in the military between the right majority and the left leadership? Wall St. and corporate support for abortion? Clinton's explicit inspiration from Alinsky? US support for Hamas / Muslim Brotherhood / Hawai'ian Separatists? Nobody wins everything unless they treat their opponents like Melians.