4 ms·

It's not articulated directly in this letter but you have to glance at it sideways a bit to see the bear they are poking - it's not just free speech advocacy:

by gfodor 6y ago

It's not articulated directly in this letter but you have to glance at it sideways a bit to see the bear they are poking - it's not just free speech advocacy: "Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit, independent of the researcher's identity or personal views" This stands in direct opposition to the (increasingly common) belief that scientific merit is at best just one aspect, at worst a complete myth, and that the "lived experience" of the author (particularly through their racial and gender experience) contributes as much, if not more, to the validity and weight one ought to give to their scientific contributions and the conclusions they draw from them. This may sound ridiculous and you may think "surely they don't actually mean what it sounds like they are saying" but indeed they do, strongly. This is why it ought to be treated as a religion. The reason it ties back to the worldview I mentioned is if you believe that all human experience is merely an expression of oppressive forces and cultural constructs then "lived experience" ought to be the primary determinant of truth, since the scientific method itself is one such cultural construct, and likely a tool of oppression at that given its Euro-centric origins, and hence deeply flawed and broken in comparison to the "truth" of the collective experiences of diverse people.

pdonis 6y ago
> "Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit, independent of the researcher's identity or personal views" Yes, I get what the writers of the letter say they are arguing for. I'm just not buying it. What is this "scientific merit"? What it turns out to mean, on closer inspection, is "consensus of people who have scientific credentials in the applicable fields". Which is just as much of an "artificial social construct" as the BS they are complaining about. In other words, the problem is actually much worse than these letter writers realize. As I said: the problem is not that a bunch of "unbelievers" who just want to decide things rationally are fighting against religious zealots. The problem is that all of the sides who are fighting are religious zealots--just of different religious sects. In science, for example, nobody is fighting for "scientific merit is judged by predictive track record, and nothing else--if your theory makes wrong predictions it is wrong, period, no matter how many credentials you have or how many papers you have published or how many other scientists agree with you". Note that this is not directly articulated in the letter either; but if you look at how science is being done today, including the science these letter writers are doing, that's what you'll see. At least, that's what I see.
- gfodor 6y ago
  I mean, if that's truly the underlying belief system with regards to science of the signatories, I agree with you. But I think it's worth leaving open the possibility that what you highlight is an effect of the fallability of humans (which science is designed to help protect us against) and the "merit" stated in the letter is in fact the platonic ideal science sets out to attain - I would hope many scientists would acknowledge that the gap between this ideal and the reality is a problem, as you have.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > the fallability of humans (which science is designed to help protect us against) Which science as an institution is supposed to help protect us against, yes. But science as an institution as it currently exists, which is the institution that all these academics are working in, does not do that. And these academics are simply not talking about that at all; I doubt if they even realize it.
itronitron 6y ago
>> the "lived experience" of the author It's interesting that the "lived experience" of artists is fully factored into the personal branding and marketing of those artists. I wonder if academics just have an expectation that this is what diversity inclusion looks like.

by gfodor 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> "Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit, independent of the researcher's identity or personal views" Yes, I get what the writers of the letter say they are arguing for. I'm just not buying it. What is this "scientific merit"? What it turns out to mean, on closer inspection, is "consensus of people who have scientific credentials in the applicable fields". Which is just as much of an "artificial social construct" as the BS they are complaining about. In other words, the problem is actually much worse than these letter writers realize. As I said: the problem is not that a bunch of "unbelievers" who just want to decide things rationally are fighting against religious zealots. The problem is that all of the sides who are fighting are religious zealots--just of different religious sects. In science, for example, nobody is fighting for "scientific merit is judged by predictive track record, and nothing else--if your theory makes wrong predictions it is wrong, period, no matter how many credentials you have or how many papers you have published or how many other scientists agree with you". Note that this is not directly articulated in the letter either; but if you look at how science is being done today, including the science these letter writers are doing, that's what you'll see. At least, that's what I see.

gfodor 6y ago
I mean, if that's truly the underlying belief system with regards to science of the signatories, I agree with you. But I think it's worth leaving open the possibility that what you highlight is an effect of the fallability of humans (which science is designed to help protect us against) and the "merit" stated in the letter is in fact the platonic ideal science sets out to attain - I would hope many scientists would acknowledge that the gap between this ideal and the reality is a problem, as you have.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > the fallability of humans (which science is designed to help protect us against) Which science as an institution is supposed to help protect us against, yes. But science as an institution as it currently exists, which is the institution that all these academics are working in, does not do that. And these academics are simply not talking about that at all; I doubt if they even realize it.

itronitron 6y ago

>> the "lived experience" of the author It's interesting that the "lived experience" of artists is fully factored into the personal branding and marketing of those artists. I wonder if academics just have an expectation that this is what diversity inclusion looks like.