3 ms·

I can argue to shut down anything in science that gets changed because of political reasons, because there shouldn't be politics in science. The further along

I can argue to shut down anything in science that gets changed because of political reasons, because there shouldn't be politics in science. The further along we seem to get the worse it seems to get though. I did math, statistics specifically, so ... well ever since climate change that's a lost cause. And that's uniformly bad. Bad for the quality of people at university, students and academics. Bad for the science itself. Bad for society (imho). Bad for everyone. The ONLY merit Gall-Peters has is this supposed "social justice" bullshit. Neither Gall and Peters were honest. Neither of them had anything to contribute to mapmaking. They just wanted attention and money. Get out. Just ... get out. Find a better reason, or please don't bother anyone.

cooper12 10y ago
> there shouldn't be politics in science Politics is unavoidable in science. There was never an era in which the two weren't combined from phrenology to modern-day examples like global warming which you mentioned. To expect science to be free from outside influence is overly idealistic. Science needs funding. That fact alone makes it inseparable. > The ONLY merit Gall-Peters has is this supposed "social justice" bullshit. Now you're just being dishonest. Did you miss the whole "equal area" thing? > They just wanted attention and money. Yeah map projection creators are rolling in royalties... You tell me to find a better reason and you come up with bullshit like this, ha!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]