4 ms·

Why does this crap get published in PNAS and our papers don't? Oh i guess we ll never know , and i don't see a comment section. Apart from the suspicious title

Why does this crap get published in PNAS and our papers don't? Oh i guess we ll never know , and i don't see a comment section. Apart from the suspicious title and almost vulgar buzzword journo-lingo, the article doesn't add citations for its their most controversial claims such as this: > "Democrats are the party of the poor, city dwellers,women, nonwhites, and secularists. Republicans, in contrast, represent white males, rural areas, evangelicals, and the well off." , they admit to invalid extrapolations of their own claims (ref 28) and their analysis lacks any attempts at comparative analysis. Their entire message is that "scientists have to put up with fake news". Yeah tough shit, this is 2018. So much more could be said about decades of promotic "scientific" politics (technocracy) and its failures as well. And apparently, this is an opinion piece which somehow got peer reviewed and it dates from April.

EGreg 8y ago
Because in postmodernism, rationality and logic is a tool of the patriarchy, the (various types of) establishment, or otherwise a construct of those in power, against those who are not in power. Thus we must balance it out https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is-irrational/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is-irra... http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't do this here. Where by "this" I mean bringing in things you consider dumb, just to kick at them. This is not how we gratify intellectual curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - EGreg 8y ago
    Fair enough. That should be added to the official policies so it’s known in advance. However I do think it’s a major trend that needs to be ridiculed. It’s all across the map. Many of my rightwing and libertarian leaning facebook friends have increasingly become skeptical of the scientific establishment when it comes to climate change, evolution etc. Many of my friends on the left are likewise making these claims about GMOs or anti vaxxers (regardless of political affiliation) often claim that the vaccines are population control and any arguments are paid for by governments. People on both sides of the Israel Palestine issue and so on are claiming that historical facts or context is “just talking points”. And yes, some major proponents of third wave feminism have espoused this as well. To me these are all aspects of a weird “post modernist” approach to science, and particularly frustrating with climate change deniers (because it affects us all). It is a MINDSET where a rational argument is met with “oh well that’s just the ESTABLISHMENT, you are a XYZ” where XYZ is the opposite political or ideological identity. Frankly now that I think about it, it is exactly an answer to the parent’s question. I will even quote Encyclopedia.com to show that my comment is “not just kicking at a position” but in fact simply stating it — and you are making a value judgment yourself: https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and-architecture/architecture/postmodernism https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and-arc... de-centered postmodern heterogeneity makes obsolete the Enlightenment ideal of consensus, which all too frequently required the suppression of minority dissent. Postmodernity, with its heterogeneous interests and worldviews, allows previously oppressed or marginalized groups to make claims upon justice, and upon a position of centrality, even in the absence of majority consensus concerning such claims. Here are other sources too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/
- mmirate 8y ago

EGreg 8y ago

Because in postmodernism, rationality and logic is a tool of the patriarchy, the (various types of) establishment, or otherwise a construct of those in power, against those who are not in power. Thus we must balance it out https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is-irrational/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is-irra... http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

dang 8y ago
Please don't do this here. Where by "this" I mean bringing in things you consider dumb, just to kick at them. This is not how we gratify intellectual curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- EGreg 8y ago
  Fair enough. That should be added to the official policies so it’s known in advance. However I do think it’s a major trend that needs to be ridiculed. It’s all across the map. Many of my rightwing and libertarian leaning facebook friends have increasingly become skeptical of the scientific establishment when it comes to climate change, evolution etc. Many of my friends on the left are likewise making these claims about GMOs or anti vaxxers (regardless of political affiliation) often claim that the vaccines are population control and any arguments are paid for by governments. People on both sides of the Israel Palestine issue and so on are claiming that historical facts or context is “just talking points”. And yes, some major proponents of third wave feminism have espoused this as well. To me these are all aspects of a weird “post modernist” approach to science, and particularly frustrating with climate change deniers (because it affects us all). It is a MINDSET where a rational argument is met with “oh well that’s just the ESTABLISHMENT, you are a XYZ” where XYZ is the opposite political or ideological identity. Frankly now that I think about it, it is exactly an answer to the parent’s question. I will even quote Encyclopedia.com to show that my comment is “not just kicking at a position” but in fact simply stating it — and you are making a value judgment yourself: https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and-architecture/architecture/postmodernism https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and-arc... de-centered postmodern heterogeneity makes obsolete the Enlightenment ideal of consensus, which all too frequently required the suppression of minority dissent. Postmodernity, with its heterogeneous interests and worldviews, allows previously oppressed or marginalized groups to make claims upon justice, and upon a position of centrality, even in the absence of majority consensus concerning such claims. Here are other sources too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/
mmirate 8y ago