5 ms·
> in science there’s no place for identity politics Sounds like a "theory vs practice thing". Do you believe that identity should not, and/or does not affect a
by Jare 8y ago
> in science there’s no place for identity politics
Sounds like a "theory vs practice thing". Do you believe that identity should not, and/or does not affect a person's ability to practice science to the best of their potential?
Of course I believe that in theory it should not but in practice it does. Organizations that try to correct, compensate, steer, etc. things towards where they should be, need to exist because things are not where they should be. There is nothing unscientific about it, but maybe you have data to prove otherwise. (I personally have no idea if BlacksInAI does this job well or not. The choice of Ethiopia in this case does not look great)
- logicchains 8y ago>things are not where they should be Citation needed. >There is nothing unscientific about it, but maybe you have data to prove otherwise. If you make a claim that something should be done, the burden on proof is on you to substantiate that claim.
- andybak 8y ago> things are not where they should be Are you seriously trying to claim that science is a perfect meritocracy? Seriously?
- logicchains 8y ago>Are you seriously trying to claim that science is a perfect meritocracy? I'm not making any particular claim about science. I'm making a general claim about reason: someone making a moral argument must provide some reason or evidence to support that argument. In this particular case, it means that if someone wants to make a claim that there is something morally wrong with the distribution of scientists with respect to some particular characteristic, the onus is on them to support their claim (refute the null hypothesis).
- andybak 8y agoIf this was an academic paper then maybe but it's a comment on a forum on a website and life is too short to marshal supporting evidence for every stated opinion. So I put it to you again, do you agree with the statement or do you disagree?
- gsich 8y agoIf no evidence is presented, the argument is invalid. This also applies to forums.
- andybak 8y agoI highly doubt that you apply this principle consistently yourself. In fact I just skimmed your comment history and there's a wealth of arguments presented without supporting evidence.
- gsich 8y agoVery true. But you made a controversial statement without backing it up. Then you replied with a typical "just a forum" excuse. Which probably means: You can't find sources to back up your statement, or available sources contradict your statement. If someone wants a source to my comments, I'll provide it as best I can.
- andybak 8y ago> But you made a controversial statement without backing it up. 1. I didn't make the original statement 2. The reason I became involved in this debate is because the original statement seemed very far from controversial to me and I was rather dumbfounded that anyone felt the need to ask for supporting evidence. The original claim was "things are not where they should be" and the context was "a person's ability to practice science to the best of their potential" irrespective of their nationality, gender, ethnicity etc. For this to be controversial someone would have to be making the rather extreme counter-claim that scientific achievement is based solely on ability.
- nisuni 8y agoScience is probably the most meritocratic field in the world.
- andybak 8y agoI don't disagree. But that statement doesn't contradict the original point.
- A2017U1 8y agoNot sure about perfect but it's probably close. If you can solve any of the outstanding problems no one is going to care where you come from, gender, political views, socioeconomic status etc. That seems quite meritocratic to me. Compare that to say a distinguished position such as a Supreme Court judge appointment.
- nisuni 8y agoI believe that identity may affect a person’s ability to do science, since there’s a correlations between identity and economic status. That said, science is about equality of opportunities, not about equality of outcomes. This means that we should of course strive for having easier access to universities for people of all backgrounds. But after that Academia is PURE meritocracy. Anyone who fights for more graduates with a certain identity, or more researchers with a certain identity, or more professors with a certain identity is SEVERELY misguided.
- andybak 8y ago> But after that Academia is PURE meritocracy. Are you claiming it is a pure meritocracy or that it aspires to being such? If the former then I think that's remarkably optimistic to the point of naivety so I'll presume you mean the latter.
- nisuni 8y agoAcademia is not perfectly meritocratic but is most likely the most meritocratic environment in the world, particularly in science.
- vidarh 8y ago> But after that Academia is PURE meritocracy. This is pure naivety.