3 ms·

I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more ideal

I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? This comment is similar to comments I've heard about nonprofits, govt work, and a quite a few large businesses. For a long time I thought nonprofits were generally good, in college I learned more about what nonprofit means and how that kneejerk reaction of mine could provide cover for a huge range of behaviors. "money and time seems to be spent on politics, careerism and working actively for some disproportionally funded but "profitable" niche"

kossTKR 4y ago
Good question. No, i don't think it's much different in other sectors. And the comparison to NGO's is a good one because the same realisation can be made about big parts of that world - ie. lots of them exist to further geopolitical or corporate ends, niches, or keep higher middle class do gooders busy instead of focusing on political or systemic issues. (i have lots of respect for a lot of people in that world still). I guess that leads me to the actual problem; their images as somehow pure or isolated from the rest of societal power dynamics. Everywhere it's about resources, realpolitiks and (media) power, but the internet is filled with people blindly believing in "science", "ngo"'s or people with diplomas for that sake.
mistermann 4y ago
> I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? As it is, Science has developed a rather substantial reputation (lots of marketing during the COVID phenomenon), and has a large and hyper-confident fan base spreading The Good Word on social media. I often wonder why Science seems unable / uninterested in addressing this non-ideal state of affairs, considering it's substantial intellectual power (a fact I am regularly educated on by my superiors).

kossTKR 4y ago

Good question. No, i don't think it's much different in other sectors. And the comparison to NGO's is a good one because the same realisation can be made about big parts of that world - ie. lots of them exist to further geopolitical or corporate ends, niches, or keep higher middle class do gooders busy instead of focusing on political or systemic issues. (i have lots of respect for a lot of people in that world still). I guess that leads me to the actual problem; their images as somehow pure or isolated from the rest of societal power dynamics. Everywhere it's about resources, realpolitiks and (media) power, but the internet is filled with people blindly believing in "science", "ngo"'s or people with diplomas for that sake.

mistermann 4y ago

> I'm curious if you think there is more of this in science than in other places. Or is it that we want to think of science and academia as better than/more idealistic? As it is, Science has developed a rather substantial reputation (lots of marketing during the COVID phenomenon), and has a large and hyper-confident fan base spreading The Good Word on social media. I often wonder why Science seems unable / uninterested in addressing this non-ideal state of affairs, considering it's substantial intellectual power (a fact I am regularly educated on by my superiors).