4 ms·

I often wonder how many decades of progress political correctness (different from ethics) has cost us when it comes to science (when it's sound, provable, and r

I often wonder how many decades of progress political correctness (different from ethics) has cost us when it comes to science (when it's sound, provable, and replicable).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
carapace 5y ago
Probably not as many decades of progress as racism and sexism have cost us, eh?
- cowuser666 5y ago
  This would be clever if political correctness and racism/sexism were necessarily opposed to each other. Alas...
- Jensson 5y ago
  Racism and sexism were political correctness.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    Sometimes I feel bad for the people whose legacy was tainted by scientific racism, especially if they lived to see its end and changed their opinions accordingly. Lovecraft is an example of this.
    - KittenInABox 5y ago
      I wasn't aware Lovecraft stopped being a xenophobe late in life. Would you be willing to provide articles or something?
      - Causality1 5y ago
        Oh he never stopped being a xenophobe, but he drew a line between his personal dislike and the idea that other races were inherently inferior. This is a good read: https://motifri.com/lovecraftcontext/ https://motifri.com/lovecraftcontext/ I like to think that if he hadn't died so young his personal tastes might have matured.
  - AlexCoventry 5y ago
    Whining about political correctness is political correctness.
  - geofft 5y ago
    I see what you're getting at, but this is a bit of a motte-and-bailey argument. While it is literally true that widespread acceptance of racism and sexism was (and is) motivated by a desire to avoid being wrong in the eyes of prevailing politics, that's not what the specific term "political correctness" popularized in the early '90s referred to. The NYT opinion article that popularized the term said: > Affirmative action is politically correct. So too are women's studies, gay and lesbian studies, and African-American studies, all of which are strongly represented in the scholarly panels at such professional meetings as those of the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association. [...] Biodegradable garbage bags get the p.c. seal of approval. Exxon does not. And Bush Sr. gave a speech shortly thereafter decrying it: > The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. They and all the other media figures and conservative politicians and so forth in the early '90s would have all looked at you confused if you claimed that racism and sexism, themselves, were forms of political correctness. If your argument is that public pressure to conform to racist and sexist cultural consensuses was bad for scientific research, it does not actually help the cause to defend opponents of "political correctness" who advocate for the freedom to express now-unpopular racist and sexist viewpoints.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > If your argument is that public pressure to conform to racist and sexist cultural consensuses was bad for scientific research My argument is that public pressure to conform to the political norms for its time is always bad for scientific research, regardless what the political norms are. The political norms are what is called "politically correct", things that you should believe because otherwise society will become hostile against you. Political correct pressure on science is similar to banning all smoking health research that isn't funded by tobacco companies. Sure tobacco funded research is still research, but it will be extremely biased. The same about politically pressured research. The pressure to confirm racist ideas lead to a lot of bad science in the past. The pressure to confirm modern political ideas lead to a lot of bad science today. Those two works in exactly the same way. However since I live today and not in the past I care about the problems science face today rather than the problems it had a long time ago that are no longer relevant.
twofornone 5y ago
I strongly suspect that much of the messiness in empirical biological studies would be deconfounded if we were generally more willing to classify humans into narrower ethnic groups. For example, different groups of people are likely optimized for different diets, in which case insufficiently breaking down the ethnic makeup of your study cohort would lead to weak or contradictory evidence when applied to populations at large, as we tend to see. The same likely applies to various supplements, medications, and probably even psychological studies including behavioral and medical interventions for abnormal states. I can understand the hesitancy to do so but I think most people, including scientists, are not aware of the likely cost. It is possibly to classify humans into races/subspecies without resorting to racial discrimination or animus - the same way we currently celebrate so called diversity. I do believe it would likely have implications for the interventions which certain pockets of our society are attempting to install to correct for racially correlated inequities.

I often wonder how many decades of progress political correctness (different from ethics) has cost us when it comes to science (when it's sound, provable, and replicable).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

carapace 5y ago

Probably not as many decades of progress as racism and sexism have cost us, eh?

cowuser666 5y ago
This would be clever if political correctness and racism/sexism were necessarily opposed to each other. Alas...
Jensson 5y ago
Racism and sexism were political correctness.
- Causality1 5y ago
  Sometimes I feel bad for the people whose legacy was tainted by scientific racism, especially if they lived to see its end and changed their opinions accordingly. Lovecraft is an example of this.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    I wasn't aware Lovecraft stopped being a xenophobe late in life. Would you be willing to provide articles or something?
    - Causality1 5y ago
      Oh he never stopped being a xenophobe, but he drew a line between his personal dislike and the idea that other races were inherently inferior. This is a good read: https://motifri.com/lovecraftcontext/ https://motifri.com/lovecraftcontext/ I like to think that if he hadn't died so young his personal tastes might have matured.
- AlexCoventry 5y ago
  Whining about political correctness is political correctness.
- geofft 5y ago
  I see what you're getting at, but this is a bit of a motte-and-bailey argument. While it is literally true that widespread acceptance of racism and sexism was (and is) motivated by a desire to avoid being wrong in the eyes of prevailing politics, that's not what the specific term "political correctness" popularized in the early '90s referred to. The NYT opinion article that popularized the term said: > Affirmative action is politically correct. So too are women's studies, gay and lesbian studies, and African-American studies, all of which are strongly represented in the scholarly panels at such professional meetings as those of the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association. [...] Biodegradable garbage bags get the p.c. seal of approval. Exxon does not. And Bush Sr. gave a speech shortly thereafter decrying it: > The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. They and all the other media figures and conservative politicians and so forth in the early '90s would have all looked at you confused if you claimed that racism and sexism, themselves, were forms of political correctness. If your argument is that public pressure to conform to racist and sexist cultural consensuses was bad for scientific research, it does not actually help the cause to defend opponents of "political correctness" who advocate for the freedom to express now-unpopular racist and sexist viewpoints.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > If your argument is that public pressure to conform to racist and sexist cultural consensuses was bad for scientific research My argument is that public pressure to conform to the political norms for its time is always bad for scientific research, regardless what the political norms are. The political norms are what is called "politically correct", things that you should believe because otherwise society will become hostile against you. Political correct pressure on science is similar to banning all smoking health research that isn't funded by tobacco companies. Sure tobacco funded research is still research, but it will be extremely biased. The same about politically pressured research. The pressure to confirm racist ideas lead to a lot of bad science in the past. The pressure to confirm modern political ideas lead to a lot of bad science today. Those two works in exactly the same way. However since I live today and not in the past I care about the problems science face today rather than the problems it had a long time ago that are no longer relevant.

twofornone 5y ago

I strongly suspect that much of the messiness in empirical biological studies would be deconfounded if we were generally more willing to classify humans into narrower ethnic groups. For example, different groups of people are likely optimized for different diets, in which case insufficiently breaking down the ethnic makeup of your study cohort would lead to weak or contradictory evidence when applied to populations at large, as we tend to see. The same likely applies to various supplements, medications, and probably even psychological studies including behavioral and medical interventions for abnormal states. I can understand the hesitancy to do so but I think most people, including scientists, are not aware of the likely cost. It is possibly to classify humans into races/subspecies without resorting to racial discrimination or animus - the same way we currently celebrate so called diversity. I do believe it would likely have implications for the interventions which certain pockets of our society are attempting to install to correct for racially correlated inequities.