5 ms·

> The idea that science advances only when old scientists die is used to promote the idea that science has nothing over politics. It is anti-science propaganda.

> The idea that science advances only when old scientists die is used to promote the idea that science has nothing over politics. It is anti-science propaganda. Sounds to me like you believe that science proceeds without politics. > Young scientists are hungry and there not enough positions for them. Every department has that old rockstar or two who doesn't really push the boundaries of science anymore, but takes up available positions. When they retire or die, new people come in who are still young and full of energy. This process you've described here resembles the political process we observe in government (or any human social system that involves a competitive hierarchy), with the exception that in government the problem of 'taking up available positions' is attenuated by the existence of term limits for most leadership positions.

SubiculumCode 10y ago
Of course there are politics in research. But that is moving the goal post. The question is whether politics and science are equivalently grounded, and they are not.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  You're moving the goalpost. Your initial claim was that the idea was promoted "to prove that science has nothing over politics". None of the major exponents or scholars of this concept of whom I'm aware -- Bohr, Kuhn, Oreskes, and others -- have as their primary motivation any desire to demote or debunk science. If you're going to make that claim, you'll have to substantiate it. You've failed to do so. Twice.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    Yes my claim is that this idea is promoted to demote science to mere politics, but left unsaid by me was that I was targeting my complaint to the leaders of anti-science movements (climate change denial) who seek to claim moral equivalency so that they might push policies that benefit them politically and financially. I did not offer evidence to support this claim, except as a claim from memory, and don't want to be bothered to look for quotes. So my argument was underspecified, which led you to believe I was referring to the like of Bohr, Kuhn, Oreskes and other serious thinkers, which I was not.
    - SubiculumCode 10y ago
      That was downvoted? Lame.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Agreed, even if I don't find the argument particularly compelling ;-)
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  The question is whether politics and science are equivalently grounded... Maybe that's how you most frequently encounter this topic, but it's a gross overstatement to say that's the only question here. Was Planck was motivated by anti-science sentiment when he said that? I suspect not. No one seriously debates whether politics is a factor in science. AFAICT, the the question is entirely to what degree politics influences the progress of science. In my experience, even people with relatively radical views understand this.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    Why do you go through the act of arguing when we agree that scientific progress is a mix of politics and science? My first claim in great grandparent was that the argument that science on progresses when scientists die is used to argue that politics and science are equivalent, that science is reducible to politics. Since we agree that is not so reducible to politics, let us agree that we agree and move on.

SubiculumCode 10y ago

Of course there are politics in research. But that is moving the goal post. The question is whether politics and science are equivalently grounded, and they are not.

dredmorbius 10y ago
You're moving the goalpost. Your initial claim was that the idea was promoted "to prove that science has nothing over politics". None of the major exponents or scholars of this concept of whom I'm aware -- Bohr, Kuhn, Oreskes, and others -- have as their primary motivation any desire to demote or debunk science. If you're going to make that claim, you'll have to substantiate it. You've failed to do so. Twice.
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  Yes my claim is that this idea is promoted to demote science to mere politics, but left unsaid by me was that I was targeting my complaint to the leaders of anti-science movements (climate change denial) who seek to claim moral equivalency so that they might push policies that benefit them politically and financially. I did not offer evidence to support this claim, except as a claim from memory, and don't want to be bothered to look for quotes. So my argument was underspecified, which led you to believe I was referring to the like of Bohr, Kuhn, Oreskes and other serious thinkers, which I was not.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    That was downvoted? Lame.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Agreed, even if I don't find the argument particularly compelling ;-)
andrewflnr 10y ago
The question is whether politics and science are equivalently grounded... Maybe that's how you most frequently encounter this topic, but it's a gross overstatement to say that's the only question here. Was Planck was motivated by anti-science sentiment when he said that? I suspect not. No one seriously debates whether politics is a factor in science. AFAICT, the the question is entirely to what degree politics influences the progress of science. In my experience, even people with relatively radical views understand this.
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  Why do you go through the act of arguing when we agree that scientific progress is a mix of politics and science? My first claim in great grandparent was that the argument that science on progresses when scientists die is used to argue that politics and science are equivalent, that science is reducible to politics. Since we agree that is not so reducible to politics, let us agree that we agree and move on.