3 ms·

Thanks for pointing out the glacier article - it looks really interesting - here’s a 2016 interview with the author (a science historian who studies people who

Thanks for pointing out the glacier article - it looks really interesting - here’s a 2016 interview with the author (a science historian who studies people who study glaciers), Mark Carey (a man) https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-glaciology-study-reflects-sudden-appearance-culture-wars https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-g...

klyrs 5y ago
I wonder what's so ominous about listening to what historically marginalized groups have to say about glaciers instead of systematically censoring them on the basis of their identity.
- a9h74j 5y ago
  Fair point. I inserted a snippet I did not have the provinence for, and I did not see the full import. Mea culpa. However, there seems to be more going on within that snippet than "We will study glacier change impacts with particular sensitivity to women's views." Some of those other things do appear pertinant to the subject of the OP at Quillette.
- dc7yduejjrn 5y ago
  Why does the historical side matter in this context? Their work is perfectly capable of speaking for itself.
a9h74j 5y ago
Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link. For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.) Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term). From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.
_Algernon_ 5y ago
Poe's law-ing pretty hard on this. Thought its satire, but reading the interview it appears serious? Send help pls

klyrs 5y ago

I wonder what's so ominous about listening to what historically marginalized groups have to say about glaciers instead of systematically censoring them on the basis of their identity.

a9h74j 5y ago
Fair point. I inserted a snippet I did not have the provinence for, and I did not see the full import. Mea culpa. However, there seems to be more going on within that snippet than "We will study glacier change impacts with particular sensitivity to women's views." Some of those other things do appear pertinant to the subject of the OP at Quillette.
dc7yduejjrn 5y ago
Why does the historical side matter in this context? Their work is perfectly capable of speaking for itself.

a9h74j 5y ago

Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link. For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.) Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term). From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.

_Algernon_ 5y ago

Poe's law-ing pretty hard on this. Thought its satire, but reading the interview it appears serious? Send help pls