4 ms·

I have no problem with funding CS research. It's at least somewhat productive to society. Not hugely, but that's academia for you. Even batting 50% is great com

by eloff 6y ago

I have no problem with funding CS research. It's at least somewhat productive to society. Not hugely, but that's academia for you. Even batting 50% is great compared to 0%. These kinds of woke gender studies, socialist, racist, fields etc are a joke. I don't accept your implication that only someone inside the nut house are credentialed to evaluate it - if anything those seem like the people least likely to be able to make a clear judgment. These kinds of people are dangerous - they advocate for tearing down the system we have that works pretty well - with no coherent idea of what to replace it with. If they ever got into power we'd all be screwed. It's my opinion that these fields are a net negative to society as a whole, having nothing to do with science or any kind of semi-scientific discipline, and should not receive public funding. They are merely thinly disguised political ideologies. It's sad what academia has come to.

woodruffw 6y ago
> having nothing to do with science or any kind of semi-scientific discipline, and should not receive public funding. It's the humanities. It's not supposed to be "scientific," with whatever weight you decide to place on that adjective. Our government (and every government) funds thousands of things, academic and not, that aren't themselves scientific: parks, libraries, public arts, aesthetic programs intended to motivate the public towards some policy goal[1]. Most people think these things should receive some amount of funding, and recognize that they themselves are not immediately qualified to distinguish worthy endeavours from un-worthy ones. [1]: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/documerica.html https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/d...
- eloff 6y ago
  Let's not compare gender studies to a park. That's a bit apples and oranges. Humanities are meant to have some redeeming value and some rigorousness even when you can't apply the scientific method. History, literature, philosophy, and anthropology are all good examples of valuable humanities where there is some grounding in logic and facts. Gender studies on the other hand is just an ideology with very little basis in reality, and little grounding of any kind in facts and logic. You could call it a religion of sorts, but it would be insulting to religions which at least have a richness of tradition and culture and philosophy behind them.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    > History, literature, philosophy, and anthropology are all good examples of valuable humanities where there is some grounding in logic and facts. I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of history to be distorted. Philosophy predates what you think of as "logic," and does not use the phrase to refer solely to systems that map roughly to the constrained proof structures that programmers are taught. More profoundly, many philosophers will outright reject the idea that logic is some kind of a priori substrate: not because they think it's wrong or not, but because they think that it's the responsibility of philosophy to consider what would have to be for it to be otherwise. I know that it's difficult, but please consider whether your own positions have become dogmatic. You don't have to agree with prevailing views in gender studies (I don't even know what they are!); you merely have to ask yourself whether you're qualified to dismiss it as "an ideology with very little basis in reality."
    - eloff 6y ago
      > I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of history to be distorted. Sure, but there's still a basis in facts where can corroborate accounts from different authors, even different sides in a war. yes it's subject to interpretation, and there's no one right answer. But you also can't just make stuff up and get people to take you seriously. There's some rigour to making and presenting your arguments. Very different to gender studies. > I know that it's difficult, but please consider whether your own positions have become dogmatic. You don't have to agree with prevailing views in gender studies (I don't even know what they are!); you merely have to ask yourself whether you're qualified to dismiss it as "an ideology with very little basis in reality." Maybe. I've seen a lot of terrible examples of things from gender studies. I'm sure there have to be some redeeming ideas right? The whole field can't be 100% worthless. But by and large there's not much value in it and a lot of nonsense, incorrect, and even dangerous thinking to be found there.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
That's pretty much just opinion? Of course they include politics, as does history, anthropology, literature. That means nothing. Strawman PC gender studies you have encountered may have poisoned it for you. That doesn't mean its worthless, or even wrong.
- eloff 6y ago
  No, but that is my opinion. I think it's a net negative to society until I see evidence to the contrary. Links welcome.
- eloff 6y ago
  Also, that's not how you use the term strawman in an argument.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    ...and yet, you apparently understood. So it was a useful, effective use of the term.

by eloff 6y ago

woodruffw 6y ago

> having nothing to do with science or any kind of semi-scientific discipline, and should not receive public funding. It's the humanities. It's not supposed to be "scientific," with whatever weight you decide to place on that adjective. Our government (and every government) funds thousands of things, academic and not, that aren't themselves scientific: parks, libraries, public arts, aesthetic programs intended to motivate the public towards some policy goal[1]. Most people think these things should receive some amount of funding, and recognize that they themselves are not immediately qualified to distinguish worthy endeavours from un-worthy ones. [1]: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/documerica.html https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/d...

eloff 6y ago
Let's not compare gender studies to a park. That's a bit apples and oranges. Humanities are meant to have some redeeming value and some rigorousness even when you can't apply the scientific method. History, literature, philosophy, and anthropology are all good examples of valuable humanities where there is some grounding in logic and facts. Gender studies on the other hand is just an ideology with very little basis in reality, and little grounding of any kind in facts and logic. You could call it a religion of sorts, but it would be insulting to religions which at least have a richness of tradition and culture and philosophy behind them.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  > History, literature, philosophy, and anthropology are all good examples of valuable humanities where there is some grounding in logic and facts. I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of history to be distorted. Philosophy predates what you think of as "logic," and does not use the phrase to refer solely to systems that map roughly to the constrained proof structures that programmers are taught. More profoundly, many philosophers will outright reject the idea that logic is some kind of a priori substrate: not because they think it's wrong or not, but because they think that it's the responsibility of philosophy to consider what would have to be for it to be otherwise. I know that it's difficult, but please consider whether your own positions have become dogmatic. You don't have to agree with prevailing views in gender studies (I don't even know what they are!); you merely have to ask yourself whether you're qualified to dismiss it as "an ideology with very little basis in reality."
  - eloff 6y ago
    > I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of history to be distorted. Sure, but there's still a basis in facts where can corroborate accounts from different authors, even different sides in a war. yes it's subject to interpretation, and there's no one right answer. But you also can't just make stuff up and get people to take you seriously. There's some rigour to making and presenting your arguments. Very different to gender studies. > I know that it's difficult, but please consider whether your own positions have become dogmatic. You don't have to agree with prevailing views in gender studies (I don't even know what they are!); you merely have to ask yourself whether you're qualified to dismiss it as "an ideology with very little basis in reality." Maybe. I've seen a lot of terrible examples of things from gender studies. I'm sure there have to be some redeeming ideas right? The whole field can't be 100% worthless. But by and large there's not much value in it and a lot of nonsense, incorrect, and even dangerous thinking to be found there.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

That's pretty much just opinion? Of course they include politics, as does history, anthropology, literature. That means nothing. Strawman PC gender studies you have encountered may have poisoned it for you. That doesn't mean its worthless, or even wrong.

eloff 6y ago
No, but that is my opinion. I think it's a net negative to society until I see evidence to the contrary. Links welcome.
eloff 6y ago
Also, that's not how you use the term strawman in an argument.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  ...and yet, you apparently understood. So it was a useful, effective use of the term.