3 ms·

In my opinion, we have deviated from the true essence of "Science" by using it to determine "what ought to be" instead of focusing on answering the fundamental

In my opinion, we have deviated from the true essence of "Science" by using it to determine "what ought to be" instead of focusing on answering the fundamental question of "what is." I know that this is not particularly in vogue now to say, but social sciences especially did a whole lot to discredit the idea of science being something that is objective. They pretend to "do science" but instead use it to either "Launder Ideas" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/idea-laundering-in-academia-11574634492 https://www.wsj.com/articles/idea-laundering-in-academia-115...) or pure activism (for example, a paper published in Hipatia suggested that male students should be trained to propagate the feminist message, much like the way viruses spread https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315583936_Women's_Studies_as_Virus_Institutional_Feminism_Affect_and_the_Projection_of_Danger) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315583936_Women's_S.... Not even going to mention the Grievance studies affair. I have embraced accelerationism and hope that "science" (and academia specifically) fails quickly so that it can rise again with greater resilience and the ability to withstand pressure from activist organizations. Let's hope the hard sciences renaissance is nigh.

kilgnad 4y ago
[flagged]
caddemon 4y ago
The social sciences indeed have the politically charged element, but I think you've hit on a broader point here. Investigating "what is" needs to involve to at least some extent a true curiosity and an adaptable plan. Modern science is so formalized that I find these ingredients to take way too much of a back seat - at least in what I've observed of modern biology. I swear more often than not the way proposed experiments are framed reeks of a "what ought to be" perspective. Not because it's wishful thinking or an externally incentivized conclusion, but just because questions are often both incremental and kinda binary. So it is reasonably likely that what they've proposed to check will turn out about how they expected, and if it doesn't it may not be publishable at all. By crafting the proposal in a particular (fairly common) style, they've inadvertently turned it into "what ought to be". By contrast, I loved talking to my really old professors because there were some awesome ones that you could tell spent a decent amount of time in their day just absolutely fucking around. Should that be the universal model of science? No, but I do believe you need those types, and I've struggled to find much of a modern equivalent. The tight job market doesn't help. Of course with fewer low hanging fruit over time as well as greater experimental costs, it is indeed more difficult to effectively spitball now. And sure there are fewer random novel observations that would be worth a fun off the cuff paper for others to follow-up on. But I still can't shake the feeling that the scientific system has partially self-imposed the eradication of this style of curiosity, in a misguided attempt to formalize science. From my perspective, there seems to be a massive underlying assumption throughout the system that scientific outputs should stand as nearly atomic units, with little chance for "unscientific" pieces of work to contribute to an eventually formalized scientific result. That clashes awfully with the ever increasing scale of open questions, and it doesn't play well with the individualistic academic ego stroking credit model either.

kilgnad 4y ago

[flagged]

caddemon 4y ago

The social sciences indeed have the politically charged element, but I think you've hit on a broader point here. Investigating "what is" needs to involve to at least some extent a true curiosity and an adaptable plan. Modern science is so formalized that I find these ingredients to take way too much of a back seat - at least in what I've observed of modern biology. I swear more often than not the way proposed experiments are framed reeks of a "what ought to be" perspective. Not because it's wishful thinking or an externally incentivized conclusion, but just because questions are often both incremental and kinda binary. So it is reasonably likely that what they've proposed to check will turn out about how they expected, and if it doesn't it may not be publishable at all. By crafting the proposal in a particular (fairly common) style, they've inadvertently turned it into "what ought to be". By contrast, I loved talking to my really old professors because there were some awesome ones that you could tell spent a decent amount of time in their day just absolutely fucking around. Should that be the universal model of science? No, but I do believe you need those types, and I've struggled to find much of a modern equivalent. The tight job market doesn't help. Of course with fewer low hanging fruit over time as well as greater experimental costs, it is indeed more difficult to effectively spitball now. And sure there are fewer random novel observations that would be worth a fun off the cuff paper for others to follow-up on. But I still can't shake the feeling that the scientific system has partially self-imposed the eradication of this style of curiosity, in a misguided attempt to formalize science. From my perspective, there seems to be a massive underlying assumption throughout the system that scientific outputs should stand as nearly atomic units, with little chance for "unscientific" pieces of work to contribute to an eventually formalized scientific result. That clashes awfully with the ever increasing scale of open questions, and it doesn't play well with the individualistic academic ego stroking credit model either.