3 ms·

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

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.

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.