4 ms·

Science allowed itself to be politicized. On the one hand, we are told to trust the science, but on the other hand, we are told to believe things that are absol

Science allowed itself to be politicized. On the one hand, we are told to trust the science, but on the other hand, we are told to believe things that are absolutely contradictory to science, and common sense. It's no wonder people have lost faith.

timeon 3y ago
If you want to talk about politics... In two-party system anything that does not align with chosen party is wrong. And one must defend the party at all cost, otherwise other would win. Scientists, like everyone are not without errors. But there is active anti-science push in some media. There are several reasons for that. For example topic of climate change is in contrast with profits of some companies. Another example are vaccines. Exploiting believes and fears that can not be proven is easy way to obtain support.
Kye 3y ago
When was it ever not politicized?
- underseacables 3y ago
  When everyone agreed that there was only two biological sexes, and the two were immutable. When vaccines were accepted as a good thing by the vast majority of the public. Those are the two most hotly contested scientific issues in recent memory
  - Kye 3y ago
    >> "When everyone agreed that there was only two biological sexes, and the two were immutable." I had people like Galileo and Darwin in mind. So no, politics in science is not new. And no, there has never been universal agreement on...that. We'll call it a "statement" to not run afoul of the guidelines. You would have to restrict your view to a fantastically thin and non-contiguous slice of geography, history, and ideology to consider it true, and it would be absurd to take someone who does that seriously. You are politicizing science. Mind your glass house.
    - underseacables 3y ago
      You asked when it was not politicized. Try not to be so argumentative. There are only two biological sexes, feel free to fact check.
      - Kye 3y ago
        I asked when. You pointed at some vague notion of an era that never existed. >> "There are only two biological sexes, feel free to fact check." There's the various forms of intersex if we just limit it to humans and modern concepts of sex. Branch out a little to the history leading up to that modern concept and things get wild. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/gender-has-a-history-and-its-more-recent-than-you-may-realize/ https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/gender-has-a-history-and-... Notions of immutable binary sex and gender themselves are political in their construction. It papered over an inconvenient truth for people whose worldview depended on neat, simple little boves. >> "The story to be gleaned from reading Gill-Peterson can be put this way. Money, with his colleagues, largely rolled 1950’s norms over scientific data so as to defend against what that data showed. Without enough interest, in the deepest sense, to listen to children or even inform them about their treatment, Money embraced changeability with one hand while grasping at fixity with the other." >> "[...] There’s your circle. Society, ignorant of medical research, makes a stigma out of something our bodies do quite naturally: not conform to a sexual binary. Thus, society’s enforced binary corrects a problem of its own making. And medicine complies, against its own research. Quite unlike later feminist notions — that gender is dynamic, changing, changeable, and capable of undermining social norms and their stigmatizing ways — Money’s 'gender' argued for something much more fixed and stigmatizing, all while purporting to sidestep stigma." Then there's ZW, XO, ZO, etc. And of course numerous animals change sex over their lives or in response to environmental conditions.
        underseacables 3y ago
        Those are purely social constructs. There are still only two, based on the chromosomes XX and XY.
        3y ago

timeon 3y ago

If you want to talk about politics... In two-party system anything that does not align with chosen party is wrong. And one must defend the party at all cost, otherwise other would win. Scientists, like everyone are not without errors. But there is active anti-science push in some media. There are several reasons for that. For example topic of climate change is in contrast with profits of some companies. Another example are vaccines. Exploiting believes and fears that can not be proven is easy way to obtain support.

Kye 3y ago

When was it ever not politicized?

underseacables 3y ago
When everyone agreed that there was only two biological sexes, and the two were immutable. When vaccines were accepted as a good thing by the vast majority of the public. Those are the two most hotly contested scientific issues in recent memory
- Kye 3y ago
  >> "When everyone agreed that there was only two biological sexes, and the two were immutable." I had people like Galileo and Darwin in mind. So no, politics in science is not new. And no, there has never been universal agreement on...that. We'll call it a "statement" to not run afoul of the guidelines. You would have to restrict your view to a fantastically thin and non-contiguous slice of geography, history, and ideology to consider it true, and it would be absurd to take someone who does that seriously. You are politicizing science. Mind your glass house.
  - underseacables 3y ago
    You asked when it was not politicized. Try not to be so argumentative. There are only two biological sexes, feel free to fact check.
    - Kye 3y ago
      I asked when. You pointed at some vague notion of an era that never existed. >> "There are only two biological sexes, feel free to fact check." There's the various forms of intersex if we just limit it to humans and modern concepts of sex. Branch out a little to the history leading up to that modern concept and things get wild. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/gender-has-a-history-and-its-more-recent-than-you-may-realize/ https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/gender-has-a-history-and-... Notions of immutable binary sex and gender themselves are political in their construction. It papered over an inconvenient truth for people whose worldview depended on neat, simple little boves. >> "The story to be gleaned from reading Gill-Peterson can be put this way. Money, with his colleagues, largely rolled 1950’s norms over scientific data so as to defend against what that data showed. Without enough interest, in the deepest sense, to listen to children or even inform them about their treatment, Money embraced changeability with one hand while grasping at fixity with the other." >> "[...] There’s your circle. Society, ignorant of medical research, makes a stigma out of something our bodies do quite naturally: not conform to a sexual binary. Thus, society’s enforced binary corrects a problem of its own making. And medicine complies, against its own research. Quite unlike later feminist notions — that gender is dynamic, changing, changeable, and capable of undermining social norms and their stigmatizing ways — Money’s 'gender' argued for something much more fixed and stigmatizing, all while purporting to sidestep stigma." Then there's ZW, XO, ZO, etc. And of course numerous animals change sex over their lives or in response to environmental conditions.
      - underseacables 3y ago
        Those are purely social constructs. There are still only two, based on the chromosomes XX and XY.
        3y ago