5 ms·

They are also getting heavier on highly politicized terms. [1] [1]: https://www.cspicenter.com/p/increasing-politicization-and-homogeneity-in-scientific-fundin

They are also getting heavier on highly politicized terms. [1] [1]: https://www.cspicenter.com/p/increasing-politicization-and-homogeneity-in-scientific-funding-an-analysis-of-nsf-grants-1990-2020 https://www.cspicenter.com/p/increasing-politicization-and-h...

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Ironically, "highly politicized terms" is itself a politicized term.
- phantom_of_cato 4y ago
  Not really, but even if it was, what meaningful difference would it make? You can see the list if the terms in the article, and it's hard to deny that they are very political.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    My ad blocker might be hiding the list you’re talking about. I see a graphic with “Most incresed hype adjectives” but I can’t imagine that’s the one you mean. Can you paste them, maybe?
    - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
      Sorry, I wasn't referring to the submitted article, but to the one I had linked to in my comment. There's a list of the terms above the chart in page 6 of the PDF, for example: https://cspi.substack.com/api/v1/file/2f0c41b8-a81b-45b1-9346-42a79680ae53.pdf https://cspi.substack.com/api/v1/file/2f0c41b8-a81b-45b1-934... The fact that these terms are political isn't controversial. In fact, you can trace back the popularization of some of them in political discourse to landmark SCOTUS decisions and executive orders. See [1], for example. [1]: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_r... "The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its university admissions to promote educational diversity, but only if considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis."
kgarten 4y ago
- phantom_of_cato 4y ago
  > you might have a romantic impression about what science is and how it works. Not really. But something which is already bad can still get worse.
  - kgarten 4y ago
    Again, politics is part of science. Your politics and beliefs will shape the research questions and hypothesis you are asking. Please define worse. I think it was worse in the past (and can give you examples if you really want to read them), there was a lot of sexist and racist work done under the term "Science." I don't see that much work like that anymore ... Yes, maybe some fringe gender science folks are overstressing sth. but come on, I don't see a problem in that (compared to how people misunderstood Darwin in the past ...).
    - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
      > Again, politics is part of science. But the question is: Should it be like that? Should we encourage or discourage that? > (and can give you examples if you really want to read them) Sure, I'd appreciate it. Especially if the articles/books covering them were not published in the recent years. I've read "Betrayers of the Truth" [1], so I know about the Piltdown Man [2] (which was apparently used to "prove" that earliest men were British), or that Cyril Burt [3] had most probably falsified data in his studies on heritability of IQ. Sometimes these exposés are themselves a tad biased though. > some fringe gender science It's not just social sciences, although they are much more affected. See the charts in the article linked in my original comment, for example. And, IMO, it's not just a fringe part of gender studies. Its departments are essentially ideological think-tanks of the worst kind, with very little objective research being done by them. > I don't see that much work like that anymore But I'm sure you also know that there are certain things which are probably true, but almost no one would ever dare (or could) publish any kind of new evidence supporting them in the current climate. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Ironically, "highly politicized terms" is itself a politicized term.

phantom_of_cato 4y ago
Not really, but even if it was, what meaningful difference would it make? You can see the list if the terms in the article, and it's hard to deny that they are very political.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  My ad blocker might be hiding the list you’re talking about. I see a graphic with “Most incresed hype adjectives” but I can’t imagine that’s the one you mean. Can you paste them, maybe?
  - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't referring to the submitted article, but to the one I had linked to in my comment. There's a list of the terms above the chart in page 6 of the PDF, for example: https://cspi.substack.com/api/v1/file/2f0c41b8-a81b-45b1-9346-42a79680ae53.pdf https://cspi.substack.com/api/v1/file/2f0c41b8-a81b-45b1-934... The fact that these terms are political isn't controversial. In fact, you can trace back the popularization of some of them in political discourse to landmark SCOTUS decisions and executive orders. See [1], for example. [1]: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_r... "The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its university admissions to promote educational diversity, but only if considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis."

kgarten 4y ago

phantom_of_cato 4y ago
> you might have a romantic impression about what science is and how it works. Not really. But something which is already bad can still get worse.
- kgarten 4y ago
  Again, politics is part of science. Your politics and beliefs will shape the research questions and hypothesis you are asking. Please define worse. I think it was worse in the past (and can give you examples if you really want to read them), there was a lot of sexist and racist work done under the term "Science." I don't see that much work like that anymore ... Yes, maybe some fringe gender science folks are overstressing sth. but come on, I don't see a problem in that (compared to how people misunderstood Darwin in the past ...).
  - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
    > Again, politics is part of science. But the question is: Should it be like that? Should we encourage or discourage that? > (and can give you examples if you really want to read them) Sure, I'd appreciate it. Especially if the articles/books covering them were not published in the recent years. I've read "Betrayers of the Truth" [1], so I know about the Piltdown Man [2] (which was apparently used to "prove" that earliest men were British), or that Cyril Burt [3] had most probably falsified data in his studies on heritability of IQ. Sometimes these exposés are themselves a tad biased though. > some fringe gender science It's not just social sciences, although they are much more affected. See the charts in the article linked in my original comment, for example. And, IMO, it's not just a fringe part of gender studies. Its departments are essentially ideological think-tanks of the worst kind, with very little objective research being done by them. > I don't see that much work like that anymore But I'm sure you also know that there are certain things which are probably true, but almost no one would ever dare (or could) publish any kind of new evidence supporting them in the current climate. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt