5 ms·

There are undoubtedly massive dangers to politicising science. But personally, I am far more concerned with lobbied interests persuading politicians that clima

There are undoubtedly massive dangers to politicising science. But personally, I am far more concerned with lobbied interests persuading politicians that climate change is a hoax, or with idiots deciding that masks and vaccinations are something you can make your own mind up about. These are real problems with substantial negative outcomes. Whether we stop naming things after Nazis or pedophiles is lower on my list of priorities.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
One follows from the other. If you politicize science, then I have no reason to listen when you claim that science supports your position.
- dluan 5y ago
  Do you actually think science isn't political?
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    Given that a lot of science gets funded by the government, of course it's political. Was just listening to a podcast yesterday about the attempts to develop an AIDS vaccine. It was definitely not prioritized in the early days because it was viewed as a "lifestyle disease". https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/dvhkd5k/presenting-not-past-it-the-vax-that-got https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/dvhkd5k/presenting-... Obviously the decision as to what gets researched is going to be at least partially political.. there's a finite amount of money to split between NASA and the CDC for example. But it would be really nice if results weren't politicised.
  - Levitz 5y ago
    Everything is political to a degree, that doesn't mean we have to accept the degree at which it is political, the author shows quite a few examples of how that can become a problem.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Presumably the reverse is also true: if I claim science supports my position then you'll say I'm politicizing science?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    That was not my position. Let me try again, with more careful use of pronouns: When some "authority" (some random internet commenter, or the CDC, or Facebook, or whoever) politicizes science, and people detect that they're doing so, then those people tend to "flip the bozo bit" on that authority. That is, they tend to discount any further science-based claims from that authority, because the authority has destroyed its own credibility. What you're describing also happens, along two paths. Sometimes it happens as a result of what I described - if you've burned your credibility, and now you're claiming "science says X", people may say that you're politicizing the science without actually checking, because you politicized it last time. It also happens because some people just don't like what you're saying and don't want to believe it, and "you're politicizing the science" gives them a convenient excuse for ignoring you. But my point was going the other direction: When you[1] politicize the science, you set your credibility on fire, and I[2] will no longer believe you when you say "the science says". [1] "You" meaning not the parent, but anyone claiming to speak authoritatively. [2] "I" meaning not I, AnimalMuppet, but people in general listening to authoritative statements.
    - cgrealy 5y ago
      > When some "authority" (some random internet commenter, or the CDC, or Facebook, or whoever) politicizes science.... What does that mean though? For example, I would hope most people on HN accept that our current best research indicates that climate change is a real thing and a problem. But given that (apolitical) starting point, you then need to do something with that information, and that is inherently political. Even doing nothing with it is a political position (the position that government should not interfere). So how do you avoid politicising science?
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
wffurr 5y ago
It's amazing that someone could write an essay titled "The Peril of Politicizing Science" and not once mention the actual civilizational peril we are in due to the political polarization over climate change and the coronavirus.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

One follows from the other. If you politicize science, then I have no reason to listen when you claim that science supports your position.

dluan 5y ago
Do you actually think science isn't political?
- cgrealy 5y ago
  Given that a lot of science gets funded by the government, of course it's political. Was just listening to a podcast yesterday about the attempts to develop an AIDS vaccine. It was definitely not prioritized in the early days because it was viewed as a "lifestyle disease". https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/dvhkd5k/presenting-not-past-it-the-vax-that-got https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/dvhkd5k/presenting-... Obviously the decision as to what gets researched is going to be at least partially political.. there's a finite amount of money to split between NASA and the CDC for example. But it would be really nice if results weren't politicised.
- Levitz 5y ago
  Everything is political to a degree, that doesn't mean we have to accept the degree at which it is political, the author shows quite a few examples of how that can become a problem.
seoaeu 5y ago
Presumably the reverse is also true: if I claim science supports my position then you'll say I'm politicizing science?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  That was not my position. Let me try again, with more careful use of pronouns: When some "authority" (some random internet commenter, or the CDC, or Facebook, or whoever) politicizes science, and people detect that they're doing so, then those people tend to "flip the bozo bit" on that authority. That is, they tend to discount any further science-based claims from that authority, because the authority has destroyed its own credibility. What you're describing also happens, along two paths. Sometimes it happens as a result of what I described - if you've burned your credibility, and now you're claiming "science says X", people may say that you're politicizing the science without actually checking, because you politicized it last time. It also happens because some people just don't like what you're saying and don't want to believe it, and "you're politicizing the science" gives them a convenient excuse for ignoring you. But my point was going the other direction: When you[1] politicize the science, you set your credibility on fire, and I[2] will no longer believe you when you say "the science says". [1] "You" meaning not the parent, but anyone claiming to speak authoritatively. [2] "I" meaning not I, AnimalMuppet, but people in general listening to authoritative statements.
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    > When some "authority" (some random internet commenter, or the CDC, or Facebook, or whoever) politicizes science.... What does that mean though? For example, I would hope most people on HN accept that our current best research indicates that climate change is a real thing and a problem. But given that (apolitical) starting point, you then need to do something with that information, and that is inherently political. Even doing nothing with it is a political position (the position that government should not interfere). So how do you avoid politicising science?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago

wffurr 5y ago

It's amazing that someone could write an essay titled "The Peril of Politicizing Science" and not once mention the actual civilizational peril we are in due to the political polarization over climate change and the coronavirus.