3 ms·

Science brings facts. Politics deals with how we use those facts. If the fact brought about by science leads one group of people to kill another, we are faced

Science brings facts. Politics deals with how we use those facts. If the fact brought about by science leads one group of people to kill another, we are faced with a political decision. Do we allow this or do we stand against it. We need the separation of science and politics. Otherwise, important facts will be politically suppressed and falsehoods will be presented as truth for political gain. It’s a story as old as the world, I don’t understand why so many people still want to mix those two.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
elihu 4y ago
I don't think you can separate science from politics. The scientific method that relies on repeatable experimental results is just a workaround for the general problem that the search for knowledge is done by highly opinionated, stubborn, egotistical, and very biased human beings. When people become scientists they don't lose those attributes, it's just that reproducibility of results act as a check on their biases. You can't remove politics from science without removing people from science. Even if the methodology is good, the question of which hypotheses are worth pursuing and which experiments should be done is political. That said, I think scientists should be given pretty wide latitude to explore wherever their curiosity leads them, and results shouldn't be rejected from publication without really good reasons that go beyond "the results of this experiment make us uncomfortable". (Though as a practical matter, research that doesn't serve some political or social objective probably isn't going to get funding.)
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  You can’t remove politics from the people practicing science. Because they are people. But science it’s self is a process. It does not have, by definition, political inputs or outputs. > the question of which hypotheses are worth pursuing and which experiments should be done is political In a sense yes, but it also proves my point. The example I think of is this. For the sake of argument, imagine there is a left leaning scientist and a right leaning one and they study economic differences between ethnic groups. The left leaning scientist will have political biases, politics, etc, because he is human, and guided by these biases he makes the decision to hypothesise the economic differences are caused by systemic inequality. This is indeed an example of a political choice guiding the scientific process. I think that is perfectly fine. I don’t see this as “politics being in science” I see this as “politics being in humans practicing science”. Now, coming back to the right leaning scientist, he too has biases and politics and a sense of morality etc because he is human. Also guided by these things he hypothesises economic differences between ethnic groups are caused by innate biological differences. Just like the left scientist, I think this is fine. This is politics in the human practicing science, not politics in science directly. Where politics in science appears is, if the prevalent political system discourage research into innate biological differences between humans and interferes in the scientific process to prevent researcher into this topic. And that is what I have a problem with. And that is exactly what is being done through guidelines like this. > the results of this experiment make us uncomfortable I think we both know that is exactly how these rules will be used.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

elihu 4y ago

I don't think you can separate science from politics. The scientific method that relies on repeatable experimental results is just a workaround for the general problem that the search for knowledge is done by highly opinionated, stubborn, egotistical, and very biased human beings. When people become scientists they don't lose those attributes, it's just that reproducibility of results act as a check on their biases. You can't remove politics from science without removing people from science. Even if the methodology is good, the question of which hypotheses are worth pursuing and which experiments should be done is political. That said, I think scientists should be given pretty wide latitude to explore wherever their curiosity leads them, and results shouldn't be rejected from publication without really good reasons that go beyond "the results of this experiment make us uncomfortable". (Though as a practical matter, research that doesn't serve some political or social objective probably isn't going to get funding.)

throwawayacc2 4y ago
You can’t remove politics from the people practicing science. Because they are people. But science it’s self is a process. It does not have, by definition, political inputs or outputs. > the question of which hypotheses are worth pursuing and which experiments should be done is political In a sense yes, but it also proves my point. The example I think of is this. For the sake of argument, imagine there is a left leaning scientist and a right leaning one and they study economic differences between ethnic groups. The left leaning scientist will have political biases, politics, etc, because he is human, and guided by these biases he makes the decision to hypothesise the economic differences are caused by systemic inequality. This is indeed an example of a political choice guiding the scientific process. I think that is perfectly fine. I don’t see this as “politics being in science” I see this as “politics being in humans practicing science”. Now, coming back to the right leaning scientist, he too has biases and politics and a sense of morality etc because he is human. Also guided by these things he hypothesises economic differences between ethnic groups are caused by innate biological differences. Just like the left scientist, I think this is fine. This is politics in the human practicing science, not politics in science directly. Where politics in science appears is, if the prevalent political system discourage research into innate biological differences between humans and interferes in the scientific process to prevent researcher into this topic. And that is what I have a problem with. And that is exactly what is being done through guidelines like this. > the results of this experiment make us uncomfortable I think we both know that is exactly how these rules will be used.