5 ms·

So to clarify, the formation of the Milky Way wasn't political, correct? I think it's important that we quickly dispel the "Everything is political" disinforma

by yucky 4y ago

So to clarify, the formation of the Milky Way wasn't political, correct? I think it's important that we quickly dispel the "Everything is political" disinformation. Bumper sticker philosophy is hot garbage.

kennywinker 4y ago
The formation of the milky way isn’t science. Science is how to study and learn about and interpret the formation of the milky way - not the event itself. And yeah, it’s political. If astronomy wasn’t political nobody would have been ex-communicated over claiming basic facts about it. “The milky way formed over x billion years in this way” is a statement that has consequences for the place of religion in our society, the value of studying our place in the world beyond what impacts us on a day to day basis, and an assertion about the word being causal and not subject to manifesting whatever type of world you want.
- yucky 4y ago
  Science can't be politics, by definition - or it doesn't work. In politics, there are things you can't say or do because you will hurt feelings. If you make science political you have ruined science. You are left with just politics. Which explains why certain people think science is political. In reality, what is left of science or what is acceptable in science after they have had their way, is political. But that is not science. Science shouldn't care about your feelings.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    > Science can't be politics That's not what anybody is saying. The thing I said was "Science is political", and that is not the same idea as "Science is politics". Science is political is just saying that what gets researched is influenced by politics, and how that research is interpreted and absorbed by society is influenced by politics, and that's a feedback loop. > If you make science political you have ruined science The endeavor to remove politics from science is a VERY good one, but you can't tell me that politics doesn't exist within science. The money for scientific research largely comes from two sources: Government, and commerce. They have agendas - the influence of the funding source on the results are well documented - which is a perversion of science, but further than that the TOPICS they chose to fund vs the ones that don't get funding are a way that politics influence science. The conclusion of a paper funded by some company may be true, but the fact that we know that piece of data is in service of some agenda. On top of that, there is the politics of how orthodoxies within science rise and fall - it's not a straight line walk towards the truth. > Science shouldn't care about your feelings. Except science does care about feelings and I would argue it should care. The main drivers of what gets researched in science are, as I said, what the funding sources want, AND what the people doing the research care about. That second part is all people's feelings. There is no scientific reason to cure cancer, it's not a threat to human existence, but when people we love get sick we want to help them. That's feelings in science - not in the conclusions, but in the directions we go and the consequences of the work. These kinds of feelings, that drive us to care for each other, are the heart and soul of science. A cold heart makes for bad science, in my opinion.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Science is political is just saying that what gets researched is influenced by politics Yes, that is a problem. As explained above. But the people I'm referring to (who not only exist, but in large numbers) are the ones that insist "everything is politics", presumably with science included in everything.

by yucky 4y ago

kennywinker 4y ago

The formation of the milky way isn’t science. Science is how to study and learn about and interpret the formation of the milky way - not the event itself. And yeah, it’s political. If astronomy wasn’t political nobody would have been ex-communicated over claiming basic facts about it. “The milky way formed over x billion years in this way” is a statement that has consequences for the place of religion in our society, the value of studying our place in the world beyond what impacts us on a day to day basis, and an assertion about the word being causal and not subject to manifesting whatever type of world you want.

yucky 4y ago
Science can't be politics, by definition - or it doesn't work. In politics, there are things you can't say or do because you will hurt feelings. If you make science political you have ruined science. You are left with just politics. Which explains why certain people think science is political. In reality, what is left of science or what is acceptable in science after they have had their way, is political. But that is not science. Science shouldn't care about your feelings.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > Science can't be politics That's not what anybody is saying. The thing I said was "Science is political", and that is not the same idea as "Science is politics". Science is political is just saying that what gets researched is influenced by politics, and how that research is interpreted and absorbed by society is influenced by politics, and that's a feedback loop. > If you make science political you have ruined science The endeavor to remove politics from science is a VERY good one, but you can't tell me that politics doesn't exist within science. The money for scientific research largely comes from two sources: Government, and commerce. They have agendas - the influence of the funding source on the results are well documented - which is a perversion of science, but further than that the TOPICS they chose to fund vs the ones that don't get funding are a way that politics influence science. The conclusion of a paper funded by some company may be true, but the fact that we know that piece of data is in service of some agenda. On top of that, there is the politics of how orthodoxies within science rise and fall - it's not a straight line walk towards the truth. > Science shouldn't care about your feelings. Except science does care about feelings and I would argue it should care. The main drivers of what gets researched in science are, as I said, what the funding sources want, AND what the people doing the research care about. That second part is all people's feelings. There is no scientific reason to cure cancer, it's not a threat to human existence, but when people we love get sick we want to help them. That's feelings in science - not in the conclusions, but in the directions we go and the consequences of the work. These kinds of feelings, that drive us to care for each other, are the heart and soul of science. A cold heart makes for bad science, in my opinion.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Science is political is just saying that what gets researched is influenced by politics Yes, that is a problem. As explained above. But the people I'm referring to (who not only exist, but in large numbers) are the ones that insist "everything is politics", presumably with science included in everything.