18 ms·
We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
- 1PlayerOne 7y agoI have a feeling it is too late. The train has left the station on this one.
- drilldrive 7y agoIf you cannot see that the March for Science is part of the problem of the politicization of science, then you are lost all the same.
- ilikehurdles 7y agoCalling the march a part of the problem is a cop-out excusing the real problems - the political response to science that spurred the march, the political response to the march itself, and mass-media's role in the politicization of science. If we say that the march is the problem, then we're saying that we should be taking at face-value anything the lobbyist talking heads of Fox News and CNN say about whatever they're pointing their fingers at. Climate Science denialist PR campaigns by Koch Industries are politicization, and it feels filthy wrong that we're overwhelmingly pointing fingers at the scientists and grassroots actors responding to these campaigns instead of the groups publishing and hosting the lies.
- creaghpatr 7y ago>it feels filthy wrong Fortunately science is about facts, not feelings.
- otaviokz 7y agoSpot on mate. Not only a sharp and valid point, but also made me laugh.
- ameister14 7y agoI think we should be precise here. Saying the march is part of the problem does not mean that the lobbyists are not also part of the problem. It also does not mean the march is a _root cause_ of the problem. It just acknowledges that the march is a part of the politicization of science, which it is.
- komali2 7y agoWhat action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science, could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"
- mooseburger 7y agoOne that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.
- komali2 7y agoIn that case it is impossible to do Climate Change, science, no? It serves the interest of the Democratic "agenda," as a side effect.
- ameister14 7y agoThat can be construed as political but also as non-political.
- mooseburger 7y agoThere are many ways around global warming, of which current Democrat policy is just one. Republicans are being silly by not proposing alternative approaches to this problem, agreed, but they absolutely can.
- komali2 7y agoMore specifically, to the republican party, climate change does not exist. Therefore, any climate change research is politically anti-republican (why would you research something that doesn't even exist?) In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a Chinese hoax." This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just "deal with it?"
- otaviokz 7y agoText interpretation should also be valued, as well as the importance of "not completely twisting another person's comment to suit your own views". Your comment extrapolates wildly from the one you responded too, and thats AMAZINGLY POLITICAL AND ALSO DISHONEST. *ps sorry for any English mistake, as it's not my first language.
- throwaway713 7y agoOne of the problems with the “defend science” movement is that it’s often being (mis)-used to support philosophical positions that are fundamentally unanswerable by science: concepts like afterlife, gender, and when life begins. I’m not saying I disagree with the popular viewpoints, but science is the wrong tool for the job. (Does human life have inherent value? I don’t know, but better predictive models and more experimentation isn’t going to answer that question.)
- hackeraccount 7y agoYes. I think it's an easy trap to use the word "Science" to defend political decisions. It seems an unassailable argument "Who would reject Science?" Don't you believe. You won't convince people your politics are rational - you'll convince people science is arbitrary.
- Numberwang 7y agoI think your philosophical position that those questions are unanswerable by science is part of the problem. We need more science education and popularization of its tools for solving problems.
- torstenvl 7y agoWhen life begins is clearly a scientific question. Perhaps you mean the question of when society should recognize and protect personhood?
- jonhendry18 7y ago
- specialist 7y agoSciAm made the same battlecry (plea) back in the 90s. I supported it then as I support it now. But it didn't work then and won't work now. Because we don't understand the enemy. The remedy isn't messaging, framing, engagement, empathy, discussion, or whatever else rational people hope will induce irrationals to step into the light. Trying to sneak science thru the infotainment propaganda blockade ain't gonna work. And is a waste of effort. Perhaps the alternative is our own media empire. Fox News was run at a loss its first decade. Something like $500m/yr is spent, at a loss, on the right wing noise machine. All those popular alt-right sites have patrons. Does the left have anything comparable? In scale and gumption? I don't know if it'd work. Reason ain't sexy. Versus the outrage and fear factory. But I'd like to try something new. -- Also, impartiality and objectivity is a trap. Just tell your story sincerely, unapologetically. The opponents will blather regardless, so don't share your soapbox.
- weberc2 7y agoDo you seriously believe there is a dearth of left-wing mainstream media outlets? And the problem with the politicization of science is not a right-vs-left issue. The left has its own bag of anti-science positions (e.g., blank slatism, anti-GMO, implicit bias, etc). EDIT: Do downvoters question that the majority of prominent news outlets are left-wing or that the left has anti-science positions?
- specialist 7y agoSputnik My mentor's theory is that the assault on reason, America's proud tradition of anti-intellectualism, took a brief hiatus after WWII because the Cold War and the space race required rocket scientists and engineers. So a brief truce of sorts was maintained between the humanists and the know-nothings. Sad to think we'll need an external existential threat like an alien invasion or imminent asteroid strike to pause the food fight.
- povertyworld 7y agoI think it depends on how you define "left-wing". Some consider the "woke capitalism" of corporate media and SV to be "left", others consider only an explicitly anti-capitalist and pro-labor stance to be left.
- fromthestart 7y ago>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science. We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoI'm more concerned what they mean by diversity of ability. Is that just another term for physically disabled people, or are we seriously at the point where only having smart people in the sciences is offensive?
- chris_mc 7y ago>diversity of scientific, not cultural views Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of children in America vs. China is different, people have different dreams and experiences, etc. I am constantly baffled by people like yourself who don't understand that cultural diversity IS diversity of ideas. Whether that culture comes from your location, race, upbringing, wealth, religion, or something else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- fromthestart 7y agoAnd I'm constantly baffled by people like yourself who have accepted that culture influences technical work, but are unable to draw the logical conclusion that certain cultures are therefore better predisposed to success in a given industry than others. You can't have it both ways. If we concede that culture influences ability, then we must accept that merit based hiring will inevitably result in disproportionate representation, and that hiring for the purpose of representation is very likely to have a negative impact on technical work.
- apo 7y agoYou have a group of people in Washington tasked with doling out money for research. By its very nature this federal funding has politicized science for a long time. Ask anyone who has been through a scientific PhD program whether or not their field has been politicized because of grants received or not received. The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be politicized the right way. Diversity initiatives. Massive spending programs without clearly-defined revenue streams. Protecting scientists from "political interference," a term which is impossible to define without eliminating the ability to filter junk science. Everyone needs to sign off on this or the bad things will happen. I'm sure the author's intentions were good, but restoring public confidence in science means that scientists themselves need to take a good look in the mirror.
- gumby 7y agoAcademia is political too. Inherently relations between people are by definition political. The point is to raise the role of epistemology in decision making where it is possible. That's all.
- Gravityloss 7y agoProbably if you spend enough time and effort you can find something political in, say, the mathematics papers written by any given university research team on any given year. But if a politician advocates for teaching that Pi is exactly three, in my opinion that's on a whole different level. Your post advocates for false equivalence, in a somewhat indirect manner. We get to "all science is politicized". And then the muddling of the waters is complete.
- rubbingalcohol 7y agoThis article is dog shit. "We must defend science against extremist political attacks by being political extremists." Their solution is to scream the loudest. People like this are incredibly tiring to deal with and offer nothing practical.
- jordanpg 7y agoScience, and especially certain scientific conclusions have very obviously become politicized. Yes, that's unfortunate but it is the state of affairs. Perhaps the problem is that scientists themselves are increasingly having to fight their own political battles because their elected politicians can not or will not.
- areoform 7y agoWhen these issues are raised, people tend to have two counter-productive reactions. The first is abject defeatism. The second anger at the messenger and accusations that they're a part of the problem. Or, in other words, talking about politicizing science is politicizing science. Both have justifiable viewpoints at their core but are harmful in the long-term nonetheless. The first is harmful and wrong for a straightforward reason; the range of outcomes that emerge from defeatism are universally bad. The range of outcomes that arise from a worldview that everything can be fixed stem from the bad to the okay to the somewhat good. The range of results that are possible through action outweigh those of inaction. So what's the point in giving up? The second bit is the science is being used in such and such ways bit. This reminds me of the debates I've had with people who have a hardline view of individual freedoms and clauses in the constitution. I often like to tell them that the constitution is a guiding document, not a suicide pact. Ideally, we should live by the idealized impartiality and objectivity that Scientists should have while interacting with the world. The idea that Scientists should be in the ivory tower, away from the grime of humanity and refraining from commenting on matters that connect and are of import with the body politic. People will mention gender, sexuality, climate change, abortion etc as these pivotal points where science can't give the answers and therefore science must ixnay and look away. But I would like to raise the idea of science Carl Sagan had. Science as a candle in the dark. Sagan would talk at length about the development of science in ancient societies, and how unconnected these developments were from the lives of the population. Heron of Alexandria created a steam engine in the ancient world, but he never applied to alleviate the burdens of humans. It was used as a curiosity for the powerful. To quote his immortal words, "The permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not." Why shouldn't we use our insight into the human condition and the broader perspective science offers us to inform our moral choices? Why should scientists bind themselves into an idealized suicide pact when they're under assault? Why can't scientists bring down the fire from Olympus and share it with the populace? Our problem stems from the fires of ignorance and the idea that someone's ignorance is equal to someone else's research or knowledge. Why can't scientists use the scientific method to investigate it and share their perspective with the world? Science tends to give people something akin to the overseer effect; why shouldn't that be shared with the world, if it moves us just a bit in the right direction? Is the potential for misuse great? Yes, but what's the alternative? Stagnation? An absence of the humanizing presence of science in the great moral debates? Why should that be the realm of charlatans and the working of mitochondria that of science? Why can't scientists connect the two and work to illuminate the darkness?
- povertyworld 7y agoThis seems like another case of the left being shortsighted like when the left cheers as bigtech purges conservatives never imagining that left voices can and will be next if they ever became a threat. In this case, they seem only focused on climate change, but they should consider that there may be other scientific facts that go counter to left narratives. I seem to remember James Damore's scandalous post riddled with citations of scientific studies. I'm sure he would agree science must be defended...
- goodfight 7y agoExactly.
- eanzenberg 7y agoDefend science, unless you disagree with its outcome!
- Veen 7y ago> We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc. I note a diversity of politics isn’t included.
- komali2 7y agoWell given that the article is about defending science from politics, I'd imagine it would extend to removing politics in all senses of the word from science.
- malvosenior 7y agoExcept the post explicitly asks to inject politics into science by listing a bunch of political talking points. How would you advocate for diversity in class without politics for instance (choosing the least controversial of the topics)? The agenda here is very clearly left wing politics.
- DuskStar 7y agoI'm personally rather confused as to how a diversity of ability is useful. A diversity of abilities perhaps, but I don't see how having an incompetent in the loop is supposed to help.
- Veen 7y agoThat stuck out to me as well, but reading it charitably I suppose it refers to people with disabilities, not to people who are rubbish at science.
- pelasaco 7y agoLol, as somebody that gave up of research, I can just tell you: try to do any research where the theme goes against the so called left-tolerant politics. You won't be able to do it.
- throw2016 7y agoScience is the search for truth, not the truth. At one time 'science' was justifying eugenics, slavery, apartheid, racism and entire policies were rolled out on the basis of discredited pseudo science of brain size. You can imagine racists and sexists at that time appealing to 'science' to maintain their privilege and worldview. You can see this now too, evidence free sweeping assertions based on some scientific study but not supported by that study and thus science, but presented as 'science'. Large segments of the population have suffered grievously based on this kind of 'science'. Hitler used eugenics and science. Science is not some absolute truth, its a long drawn process to collect evidence, test assertions and arrive at some truth, and its always been used and co-opted by those in power to advance their objectives.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoForgive me for my ignorance- I was under the impression that scientific inquiry has always been strongly affected by politics. See: The argument on whether or not evolution is real. The discovery that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The entire controversy behind the discovery of and research into AIDS. Is there something new I'm not understanding?
- antepodius 7y agoWhen someone else does it, it's Politics. When We do it, it's Science.
- georgeburdell 7y agoThe benefits of diversity is the Left’s pseudoscience, so I can’t take an article seriously that so prominently features it. There is an unbelievable amount of grift involved in getting a government scientific grant these days - major awards must have a D&I component and I know from personal experience it’s largely wasted. The author only wants conservatives purged. I want climate deniers and diversity sycophants alike purged from the scientific apparatus.
- GreaterFool 7y ago> We Must Defend Science Yes! > Because it matters who does science: Who the scientists are determines what science gets done Uhm... no? Science is science and true scientists are not identitarians. The author complains about politicizing science and then proceeds to politicize science: > The fishing research I have done was most certainly informed by having a Jamaican father who showed me the cultural value of seafood Because those of us unfortunate souls without Jamaican fathers would never understood the importance of seafood? Tell that to coastal people... anywhere where's a coast.
- Mikeb85 7y agoSo the solution to bias in the sciences is to double down on bias? Make sure only the bias you support is present? > Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D. is a marine biologist and founder of Ocean Collectiv, a consulting firm for conservation solutions grounded in social justice. Literally a think tank trying to advance scientific policies based on politics.
- tzs 7y agoThere's a difference between choosing which areas of science to support based on non-scientific criteria such as your politics (which is what it sounds like she is doing), and trying to stop science from happening or supporting anti-science because your politics are not consistent with science. Take conservation. There might be several ways to approach a given conservation problem, all of which are scientifically sound. It is then a political question which to use. Her answer to that question would presumably be one that advances social justice...but unless she would also falsely claim that others are not scientifically valid, or would also try to stop research into the other methods, her position and actions are not a political attack on science.
- 75dvtwin 7y agoIf hacker news is to preserve its community of diverse, exceptionally technical, and well-articulating members -- the site moderators must stop publishing left-wing propaganda. I appreciate that they are left-leaning, however they use aggressively use 'plausible deniability' to infest (and allow others to) this site with NYT, VOX, scientific-american, NPR and other US-centric left propaganda machines. 'Plausible deniability' used by HN moderators involves, letting through articles and opinions that are just touching 'technology' (that's where plausible comes in), while mostly reflecting the left agenda and talking points. Then, when conservative positions are being argued in comments, they will be massively downvoted and flagged -- as (not technology relevant or offensive). Same approach the HN moderators are applying to new posts. My ask is for everybody who thinks this is a problem, to either not participate in these discussions, or simply move over to lobste.rs, where there is still a sense of sane.
- dang 7y agoFor me it will forever be weird to run across internet comments talking about my inner thought processes. I don't recognize myself in what you say. Are you sure you're right?
- instantwhat 7y agoPerhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output. Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.
- dang 7y agoWould it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new reports are filed. The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)
- eitland 7y ago> 47 percent of scientists at the National Park Service and 35 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency report they had been asked to omit the phrase "climate change" from their work. I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists to do that did it for the same reason I dislike many (but certainly not all) blockchain initiatives: it has been bolted on a something where it didn't belong just to "profit" (or profit in the case of blockchains) from something that is hyped by the media. Climate change is serious, but it detracts from important work when people are abusing those words to get funding for other unrelated research.
- kaitai 7y agoI have to say, parks and the environment are, ah, pretty impacted by climate... Why do you think that discussion of climate is "bolted on" to parks/environment unnecessarily?
- eitland 7y agoIf you read carefully you might notice that I don't say everyone does, but I fully expect scientists to be smart enough to add those magic words to anything they want to study. Source: I'm an engineer, I fully expect scientists to outperform me in this ;-)
- jonhendry18 7y ago"I'm an engineer" "I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists" Is guessing what engineers do now? I hope I never use anything you worked on.
- DuskStar 7y agoFermi estimates are also known as "guessing with extra steps", but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.
- instantwhat 7y agoThis discussion is a good example of why downvoting, graying comment text, and specifically, downvoting for disagreement, are bad. The solution to the problem this story is about is robust, fearless discussion in pursuit of truth. But what I see here are many thoughtful, reasoned comments being shamed and made hard-to-read by people who aren't able or willing to rebut them. It is cowardly and anti-intellectual. It's effectively the downvoters saying, "I disagree with what you said, therefore I will make it harder for other people to hear you." It's antithetical to the stated purpose of this site: intellectual curiosity.
- GreaterFool 7y agoSo one starts with 1 point. Someone clicks downvote, it goes to 0 and the comment disappears, right? That's too fast IMHO. Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?
- instantwhat 7y ago> Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down? I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way. But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo chamber (at least, for certain topics).
- natch 7y agoIf you want to defend science, a good place to start would be to refrain from defending faith.