2 ms·

I was explaining the OP why there is spin. And why spin is taking that shape. And that was all there was to my post. But since you are playing Tipper Gore to m

I was explaining the OP why there is spin. And why spin is taking that shape. And that was all there was to my post. But since you are playing Tipper Gore to my Dee Snider: Why I get that impression - because science is also political. As are the people that do it, write for it, fund it and so on. We people are stupid, biased, and conformist. We fall in line. We do what will bring us money or social capital. We twist our reality to fit the desired outcome. We shred to pieces papers we disagree with, but only skim the one that confirm out initial assumption. We love to offer post facts justification how we were right all along. I am from former communist country - I know how whipping science and arts to fit the party line is done. I have seen it. In the west it is not different just subtler. People are more afraid of being on the wrong side of society, than being wrong. That is how the world works. And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago
>And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech. You're correct there. I was under the impression one would be focusing mostly in the oh so legendary Silicon valley. Other than that, thanks for your generosity with your perspective. If I could have another question, what do you consider the warning signs of a psesudoscience or bad science being used for political gain? Also, how do you tell when a methodology is found flawed because of political gain vs a methodology is found flawed because it is flawed and in bad science?
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Here is a thought experiment - lets publish two bogus papers. One that claims the holocaust victims are twice as high as the current accepted consensus, and one that claims that the victims are twice as low. If science was apolitical they both would be laughed away. My opinion is that in the real world - both will gain acceptance at the fringes, but while one of the papers will just be burried and ignored, the other will be career ending move and will be shredded, and careers will be launched disproving it. Same will be with any paper that perpetuates the white dominance narative and tries to disprove it. There are bigger penalties in going in one of the possible directions of the accepted truth. So we have built in conformation and confirmation bias in system. And the antivaxer paper is stellar example of using pseudoscience for political gain. With diversity in tech - you lose nothing by spinning any fact into pro diversity argument.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago

>And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech. You're correct there. I was under the impression one would be focusing mostly in the oh so legendary Silicon valley. Other than that, thanks for your generosity with your perspective. If I could have another question, what do you consider the warning signs of a psesudoscience or bad science being used for political gain? Also, how do you tell when a methodology is found flawed because of political gain vs a methodology is found flawed because it is flawed and in bad science?

venomsnake 11y ago
Here is a thought experiment - lets publish two bogus papers. One that claims the holocaust victims are twice as high as the current accepted consensus, and one that claims that the victims are twice as low. If science was apolitical they both would be laughed away. My opinion is that in the real world - both will gain acceptance at the fringes, but while one of the papers will just be burried and ignored, the other will be career ending move and will be shredded, and careers will be launched disproving it. Same will be with any paper that perpetuates the white dominance narative and tries to disprove it. There are bigger penalties in going in one of the possible directions of the accepted truth. So we have built in conformation and confirmation bias in system. And the antivaxer paper is stellar example of using pseudoscience for political gain. With diversity in tech - you lose nothing by spinning any fact into pro diversity argument.