4 ms·
I've had this same conversation with colleagues. I think there's a mixture of things going on. There's a lot more of this going on in a lot of fields, especial
by kem 10y ago
I've had this same conversation with colleagues. I think there's a mixture of things going on.
There's a lot more of this going on in a lot of fields, especially the biomedical and social sciences, but probably everywhere.
I think conservatives are correct to pick up on this general phenomenon. They know there's a lot of systemic problems with research and academics, and approach things from that perspective.
The problem, to me, is that they then overstep and use that to justify an equally pernicious position, which is to denounce or dismiss science in general, rather than to encourage fixes or constructive change. Of course, depending on the conservative, they're more likely denounce scientific research on certain topics and areas of research than others.
It's throwing baby out with bathwater, basically.
The scientific community then reacts poorly, in my opinion, by denying the kernel of truth there is to their concerns, and not addressing them.
You can see this playing out in some conservative blogs. They're aware of the replication crisis, discuss it, and point to things like the email leaks by climate scientists, which in my memory were scientifically sort of moot, but did reveal how much scientists are very much human with human flaws and motivations.
Maybe I'm wrong, though, and the typical response from the scientific community is best, though: maybe it's better to treat the problems with science separate from the conservative attacks, to tackle one problem at a time.
I guess I see two problems, one being problems with academics and science, the other being the involvement of politicians in science. I think the second thing only makes the first problem worse. It's not like the politicians aren't serving their own unholy masters.
- theWatcher37 10y agoAlso some of them are older and remember the "2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. Unfortunately the media has done a lot to poison the well on these topics, coupled with politicians all too happy to never let a crisis go to waste. Republicans yelling "small government" while trying to make a government big enough to police your bedroom. Democrats yell about stopping climate change and pump billions into crony companies that blow up and fail (all the while laundering taxpayer cash as campaign donations, republicans do this with defense groups). So you get leftists going "we shouldn't like, have new fighter jets man" and right ringers thinking global warming is a laundering scheme.
- mafribe 10y ago"2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. It would be an interesting object of study in the history of science to look at old papers in these fields, and at the structure of funding, who was benefitting from funding given to these research subjects, how political pressure was used to silence critics of the scientific merit e.g. forest dieback etc. In retrospect we know that none of the hypotheses held up. Why did they gain such a currency at the time? The "acid rain will destroy our forests" doom/gloom seems to have originated from a single person, Bernhard Ulrich [1] from the University of Göttingen. His dire warning gained immediate currency in a political climate where a new form of left-wing activism (now known as "Green Party" in various countries) was beginning to emerge. Political activists from the "Green" side of the spectrum effectively demonised all criticism of "acid rain will destroy our forests" and lead to generous funding for any research that seemed to corroborate the doom/gloom, triggering a self-reinforcing spiral. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Ulrich_(Forstwissenschaftler) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Ulrich_(Forstwissensc...
- makomk 10y agoYeah. It's certainly interesting watching conservatives pointing to the fact that acid rail didn't turn into a catastrophe to justify their opposition to the kinds of emission limit that actually put a stop to acid rain in the first place.
- mafribe 10y agoThis is indeed an important narrative, but it's not a priori clear that you can infer from "the forests are alive and healthy in 2017" to "If we had not instituted limits on sulfur pollution in the 1980s, the forests would be dead now. I grew up next to some of the world's largest coal-fired power plants that regularly featured in "worlds biggest polluters" lists. The forests were fine before flue-gas desulfurisation just as much as after. Some countries enacted flue-gas desulfurisation earlier than others. The forests were fine before flue-gas desulfurisation just as much as after. Anecdotal? Sure. But one wonders ...
- dagw 10y ago