7 ms·

Society has a long history of using the work of a scientist while persecuting, dominating and discarding them. And it will continue thanks to the personality tr

by op03 6y ago

Society has a long history of using the work of a scientist while persecuting, dominating and discarding them. And it will continue thanks to the personality trait distribution in the population. Not everyone cares about Science nor will they. People who care about other things will either see Science as a tool and use the Scientist, or see Science as a threat and take out the Scientist. It is better to teach kids (with a scientific bent) this fact and train them how to defend against certain realities than to sell a story that if we just train teachers better and improve the curriculum everyone will get interested in Science and everyone will treat Scientists ignorance and shortcomings with the patience of a grandmother. They wont and they will continue to take advantage of the "ignorance of experts" to sideline, control or bury them. The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel.

luckylion 6y ago
> The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel. I keep seeing this brought up. What specifically about Merkel's brand of politics is because of her scientific training?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- op03 6y ago
  I look at how Trump, Bolesanaro, Modi et al view Science. You don't see Merkel saying the stuff they say. They see admitting ignorance as a weakness. They don't do it as a rule. If you are a scientist and have to work in an institution funded by such people how would you feel? Plus there are these kind of articles as a reaction to what populist leaders say every 2 days - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela-merkel-germany-coronavirus-pandemic/610225/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/an... And finally a close friend I have in Europe who had an option to move anywhere choose to stay in Germany the past few years because he feels its much saner and stable than anywhere else right now. I don't see that as an accident.
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    > And finally a close friend I have in Europe who had an option to move anywhere choose to stay in Germany the past few years because he feels its much saner and stable than anywhere else right now. I don't see that as an accident. Germany is very conservative, and some people like things to stay mostly as they are?
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      If you look at what is happening in the rest of the world you will see destructive change. I want to make the world better not "change the world". I'll take careful and steady over that clusterfuck any day of the week. I also moved back to Germany from Singapore last year. Three years ago I renounced my US citizenship. I work for an Australian company. I could literally have chosen to live anywhere and chose Germany because Germany values pragmatic reality driven policies and quality of life. There is no better country to live in globally if you're not a hyper-competitive sociopath.
      - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
        Or France, let's don't forget France :)
  - luckylion 6y ago
    It seems to primarily be something that people feel in comparison to other politicians in the handling of Covid-19, though I don't know whether that's super accurate - Germany is very different from e.g. the US, it's not the person in charge that makes the big difference. In other areas (e.g. digitalization, nuclear power etc), I never got the impression that she was ruling as a scientist. Her governing style in general is pretty normal for a career politician in my opinion. She'll wait for the debate to lean heavily to one side and then add her weight to that side. Did your friend consider that differently in e.g. the early 2000s? Stability has always been a major driving force in Germany, and previous chancellors have not been scientists, so I'm not so sure that it has any influence, really.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
I think you could easily make a similar argument about anything really. Just swap "science" by "politics", "philosophy", "religion" or even "witchcraft" for that matter and you would get the exact same generic argument. Let's start by acknowledging that "science" as a concept already is understood in widely differing, fractured meanings which are fiercely contested. See: Epistomology [1]. I hold a very sceptical view on a purely utilitarian view of schooling as a way forward. Your argument - "let's teach kids with a scientific bent how to defend themselves" - a priori excludes everyone else which, paradoxically, creates this exact division. If anything, an education isn't just about teaching kids particular skills or knowledge that match their field of interest, equally important is to teach human values such as compassion, empathy, understanding,... towards themselves and each other. Yes, it's bad when ignorance and superstition end up disparaging those who are willing to look at the world from a different perspective. But equally, there's good reason to show scepticism towards those who disregard the human experience of others while pushing positivist views and an unwavering belief in progress onto the world in the name of science. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
- TimSchumann 6y ago
  A good friend of mine, who actually dropped out of Academia after 10+ years teaching, always likes to remind me that 'Science' is just a tool. It's a great tool for being descriptive about the natural world around us, but it's a very poor tool for being prescriptive about what to do with those answers. Also, I appreciate the nuance in your response given your username. Epistemology is such an interesting topic of discussion.

by op03 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

> The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel. I keep seeing this brought up. What specifically about Merkel's brand of politics is because of her scientific training?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
op03 6y ago
I look at how Trump, Bolesanaro, Modi et al view Science. You don't see Merkel saying the stuff they say. They see admitting ignorance as a weakness. They don't do it as a rule. If you are a scientist and have to work in an institution funded by such people how would you feel? Plus there are these kind of articles as a reaction to what populist leaders say every 2 days - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela-merkel-germany-coronavirus-pandemic/610225/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/an... And finally a close friend I have in Europe who had an option to move anywhere choose to stay in Germany the past few years because he feels its much saner and stable than anywhere else right now. I don't see that as an accident.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  > And finally a close friend I have in Europe who had an option to move anywhere choose to stay in Germany the past few years because he feels its much saner and stable than anywhere else right now. I don't see that as an accident. Germany is very conservative, and some people like things to stay mostly as they are?
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    If you look at what is happening in the rest of the world you will see destructive change. I want to make the world better not "change the world". I'll take careful and steady over that clusterfuck any day of the week. I also moved back to Germany from Singapore last year. Three years ago I renounced my US citizenship. I work for an Australian company. I could literally have chosen to live anywhere and chose Germany because Germany values pragmatic reality driven policies and quality of life. There is no better country to live in globally if you're not a hyper-competitive sociopath.
    - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
      Or France, let's don't forget France :)
- luckylion 6y ago
  It seems to primarily be something that people feel in comparison to other politicians in the handling of Covid-19, though I don't know whether that's super accurate - Germany is very different from e.g. the US, it's not the person in charge that makes the big difference. In other areas (e.g. digitalization, nuclear power etc), I never got the impression that she was ruling as a scientist. Her governing style in general is pretty normal for a career politician in my opinion. She'll wait for the debate to lean heavily to one side and then add her weight to that side. Did your friend consider that differently in e.g. the early 2000s? Stability has always been a major driving force in Germany, and previous chancellors have not been scientists, so I'm not so sure that it has any influence, really.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

I think you could easily make a similar argument about anything really. Just swap "science" by "politics", "philosophy", "religion" or even "witchcraft" for that matter and you would get the exact same generic argument. Let's start by acknowledging that "science" as a concept already is understood in widely differing, fractured meanings which are fiercely contested. See: Epistomology [1]. I hold a very sceptical view on a purely utilitarian view of schooling as a way forward. Your argument - "let's teach kids with a scientific bent how to defend themselves" - a priori excludes everyone else which, paradoxically, creates this exact division. If anything, an education isn't just about teaching kids particular skills or knowledge that match their field of interest, equally important is to teach human values such as compassion, empathy, understanding,... towards themselves and each other. Yes, it's bad when ignorance and superstition end up disparaging those who are willing to look at the world from a different perspective. But equally, there's good reason to show scepticism towards those who disregard the human experience of others while pushing positivist views and an unwavering belief in progress onto the world in the name of science. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

TimSchumann 6y ago
A good friend of mine, who actually dropped out of Academia after 10+ years teaching, always likes to remind me that 'Science' is just a tool. It's a great tool for being descriptive about the natural world around us, but it's a very poor tool for being prescriptive about what to do with those answers. Also, I appreciate the nuance in your response given your username. Epistemology is such an interesting topic of discussion.