4 ms·

"Rather, it is due to the corruption of science by left-wing ideology" Science is not an organization, business, political party, or group of any kind. The d

"Rather, it is due to the corruption of science by left-wing ideology" Science is not an organization, business, political party, or group of any kind. The definition of science: "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe" How are you going to generalize whatever grievances to everyone in the world who might work in a field that is scientific somehow. What a right wing nonsense article whose sole purpose is to make people fear one source of factual information.

bobsmooth 4y ago
This article is about Nature, one of the oldest and most prestigious science journals in the field.
friedman23 4y ago
Of course it's a group. As seen recently by the alzheimer's research debacle it's a group that is subject to intense social pressure.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Really? Are Iranian scientists studying plants subject to liberal social preasure?
tablespoon 4y ago
> Science is not an organization, business, political party, or group of any kind. > The def "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe" > Talking about it like the article does is completely wrong I don't think it's that clear cut. Science, according to your definition, is almost exclusively pursued in the context of scientific organizations. I think it's fair to also refer to those organizations, collectively, as "science."
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The problem I see with the collective sense of "science" is that it's very frequently used to invoke unearned credibility by associating the accomplished fields of scientific inquiry with the others. Inelegantly phrased for effect, it can work something like this: Science is great, it gave us iphones, penicillin, and put men on the Moon! Social science is a science, and science gave us those wonderful things, therefore you should respect social science. Speaking of science collectively can be a method of collectivizing credibility. The problem is that the scientific method is not equally effective in all fields of inquiry. For practical, ethical, or purely philosophical reasons, the scientific method yields great results in some fields and not in others. For instance, it is probably the case that the scientific method has limited usefulness when examining social matters concerning race, because it isn't practical to study large groups with scientific rigor, nor would it be ethical to do so even if they could. Another example might be a medical journal that refuses to publish any study that involves vivisection of humans, because that's impossible to do ethically. Reading Nature's statement charitably, I think this is what they're getting at. If they're saying they won't touch race stuff because it's not practical or ethical to study that subject with scientific rigor, then I agree with them. If on the other hand they don't have a blanket moratorium on that line of questioning but have committed to only publishing results that are ideologically correct, that seems like a problem. Presupposing the answer and only publishing results that agree with it is not scientific.

bobsmooth 4y ago

This article is about Nature, one of the oldest and most prestigious science journals in the field.

friedman23 4y ago

Of course it's a group. As seen recently by the alzheimer's research debacle it's a group that is subject to intense social pressure.

themitigating 4y ago
Really? Are Iranian scientists studying plants subject to liberal social preasure?

tablespoon 4y ago

> Science is not an organization, business, political party, or group of any kind. > The def "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe" > Talking about it like the article does is completely wrong I don't think it's that clear cut. Science, according to your definition, is almost exclusively pursued in the context of scientific organizations. I think it's fair to also refer to those organizations, collectively, as "science."

MichaelCollins 4y ago
The problem I see with the collective sense of "science" is that it's very frequently used to invoke unearned credibility by associating the accomplished fields of scientific inquiry with the others. Inelegantly phrased for effect, it can work something like this: Science is great, it gave us iphones, penicillin, and put men on the Moon! Social science is a science, and science gave us those wonderful things, therefore you should respect social science. Speaking of science collectively can be a method of collectivizing credibility. The problem is that the scientific method is not equally effective in all fields of inquiry. For practical, ethical, or purely philosophical reasons, the scientific method yields great results in some fields and not in others. For instance, it is probably the case that the scientific method has limited usefulness when examining social matters concerning race, because it isn't practical to study large groups with scientific rigor, nor would it be ethical to do so even if they could. Another example might be a medical journal that refuses to publish any study that involves vivisection of humans, because that's impossible to do ethically. Reading Nature's statement charitably, I think this is what they're getting at. If they're saying they won't touch race stuff because it's not practical or ethical to study that subject with scientific rigor, then I agree with them. If on the other hand they don't have a blanket moratorium on that line of questioning but have committed to only publishing results that are ideologically correct, that seems like a problem. Presupposing the answer and only publishing results that agree with it is not scientific.