4 ms·
I stopped reading at "social justice bandwagon". Without interacting with the central claims of this article, which seem to hark back to the breathless realm o
by undoware 8y ago
I stopped reading at "social justice bandwagon".
Without interacting with the central claims of this article, which seem to hark back to the breathless realm of nineties _Psychology Today_ grade neursci, I believe I can safely ignore any discussion about science that is basically just more culture war conturbations in sci-sauce.
If your concern is that science is being polticized, don't lead with your politics. It's just a food fight at this point.
- phonypc 8y agoThat phrase doesn't appear until nearly the end of the article. It read to me as not particularly political.
- undoware 8y agoI don't see how either how (a) where it occurs in the article body or (b) what flavours of politics are vivid to you, and which, in David Foster Wallace's memorable phrase, taste like the inside of your own mouth, would be relevant to whether this aricle constitutes unbiased scientific discourse on the matter at hand. I don't mean to be rude.
- yellowapple 8y agoFor what it's worth, the inside of my mouth tastes like meat.
- phonypc 8y agoYou said "don't lead with your politics." The author did not lead with their politics. (And IMO didn't include politics at all, other than to say politics don't belong in science.
- anth_anm 8y agoThen you're probably on his side.
- _visgean 8y agohers
- yellowapple 8y agoScience doesn't take sides.
- pnongrata 8y ago'Science' doesn't take sides, but those who choose what gets funded or gets coverage definetely do, unfortunately.
- phonypc 8y agoThe side of "science should be apolitical?" Yes. But presumably that's not how you read it.
- anth_anm 8y agoScience should be apolitical, also white men are oppressed wahhhhh.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoExcept that the term 'social justice bandwagon' is perfectly apt in the context of the article. It's at the very premise of the argument. Articles declaring that 'science indicates sexes are the same and anyone who hints otherwise is sexist' are taken at face value and published in the Guardian, CNN etc.. Contrasting opinions hardly exist in the mainstream. The author is not trying to create a culture war, they are trying to negate it. This is not a 'brains are the same' vs 'brains are different' argument. This is a 'let's look at the material evidence' argument. The brain same/different is just an example.