4 ms·

Awarding a prize for a great scientific achievement is an embarrassment to the species? I'm keen on hearing what you would prefer.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago
The twitter blue checkmark is the modern day version.
rexpop 6y ago
I would, frankly, love to imagine that the Nobel Prize were a purely meritocratic recognition of surpassing scientific achievement—especially insofar as that achievement reflects a material contribution to the good of humankind. Unfortunately, there are so many arbitrary, even medieval barriers to the average human's entry into the competition as to completely obviate its claims to impartial meritocracy. This is partly evident in the winners' pool being made up of 94% men, and only 6% women, when any honest scientist will tell you that women are, biologically speaking, equally efficacious scientists. The discrepancy, therefore, in their award reception—or even, to be generous, their achievement—can only be attributed to bigotry. Enormously, grossly, painfully, obviously sexist outcomes should not be revered, let alone accepted, or even acknowledged in polite company, except to decry them as I have. There are definitely other axes on which the prize is inaccessible due not to practitioners' skill, or ingenuity, but their socioeconomic class. Ignoring this scandalous inequity is a shameful act of willful ignorance. It's an embarrassment that we call ourselves civilized, while allowing such injustice to take purchase in our collective reverence. The prize is not important. It is the masturbatory act of a bigoted elite. It is a self-congratulatory celebration of Social Darwinism. It's gross, and a good person would be ashamed to receive it. I can understand why this would break hearts, but the emperor, here, has no clothes. The abysmal sample size should have tipped off at least one good faith statistician. Disproportionately rich disproportionately white disproportionately men are not disproportionately superior scientists.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago

The twitter blue checkmark is the modern day version.

rexpop 6y ago

I would, frankly, love to imagine that the Nobel Prize were a purely meritocratic recognition of surpassing scientific achievement—especially insofar as that achievement reflects a material contribution to the good of humankind. Unfortunately, there are so many arbitrary, even medieval barriers to the average human's entry into the competition as to completely obviate its claims to impartial meritocracy. This is partly evident in the winners' pool being made up of 94% men, and only 6% women, when any honest scientist will tell you that women are, biologically speaking, equally efficacious scientists. The discrepancy, therefore, in their award reception—or even, to be generous, their achievement—can only be attributed to bigotry. Enormously, grossly, painfully, obviously sexist outcomes should not be revered, let alone accepted, or even acknowledged in polite company, except to decry them as I have. There are definitely other axes on which the prize is inaccessible due not to practitioners' skill, or ingenuity, but their socioeconomic class. Ignoring this scandalous inequity is a shameful act of willful ignorance. It's an embarrassment that we call ourselves civilized, while allowing such injustice to take purchase in our collective reverence. The prize is not important. It is the masturbatory act of a bigoted elite. It is a self-congratulatory celebration of Social Darwinism. It's gross, and a good person would be ashamed to receive it. I can understand why this would break hearts, but the emperor, here, has no clothes. The abysmal sample size should have tipped off at least one good faith statistician. Disproportionately rich disproportionately white disproportionately men are not disproportionately superior scientists.