3 ms·

There's objective reality IMHO, but humans have demonstrated that we fail to see it clearly, and that our view of reality is biased by our beliefs, drives, expe

There's objective reality IMHO, but humans have demonstrated that we fail to see it clearly, and that our view of reality is biased by our beliefs, drives, experiences, etc. This understanding of human nature extends back to Plato, at least. One strong bias is that we follow social norms; we follow the herd. Challenges to that norm are upsetting, disruptive. But norms are not privileged in truth; there have been endless evil and ignorant norms in history. > If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. Nobody said we can't get closer, but the way to get closer is not to accept one set of beliefs and supress the others; it's to innovate and improve. We know much more about economics than we did 50 years ago and 100 years ago and centuries ago, but we still have far to go. > that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes Could you give an example of that?

kardianos 3y ago
You are joining a truth to a lie. Truth: Social normal and bias correlate. Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms. I believe in the ideals you are talking about - I think they are essential. If we don't look at how we fail those ideals, how our biases have resulted in untruths, obviously we won't get closer to them. We need to face the cold, difficult truths: I encourage you to read histories of those fields; it is overwhelmingly the case that bias has affected them in significant ways. As simple examples, much of engineering has historically assumed male users; not only does that affect seatbelt usage or bulletproof vest usage in the military (a real thing!), but it also excludes women from doing certain jobs - the equipment is made for men but not for women. Much of medical research has been on males for male problems - for example, heart disease research for a long time used only male subjects, though the disease affects women differently. Part of the reason is the training (school) and hiring bias toward male researchers, as many studies have demonstrated (some simply by removing author names). It's self-perpetuating: We are biased, of course, to hire people like ourselves (an early lesson in business school) and to focus on problems we have experience with. You need someone to push to disrupt that cycle, force women, in these examples, into the system. Otherwise, it just keeps running on that way forever.
  - alasdair_ 3y ago
    >Much of medical research has been on males for male problems Or even men for pills designed for women. e.g. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-tested-on-men/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-test...
  - kardianos 3y ago
    ... None of those biases require anything remotely like "activism" found in today's environments. All of those can be addressed with ease in existing objective frameworks.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      What reason do you have to say that? These biases have persisted for generations, even millenia in some cases. Generally, they don't change without pressure and, as MLK said, 'tension'. Plus, what is so bad about activism? What is wrong with people actively participating in democracy? It's nothing compared to the consequences of racism, sexism, etc.
    - thereticent 3y ago
      There is some fundamental disconnect in your position if you think applying an objective framework will correct scientific and educational practice. The fact that you seem to be neglecting is that science and science education are social practices. All activism is, is an attempt to change social practices. It's not all somehow unclean or wrong or anti-truth.
- archagon 3y ago
  You think history is independent of social norms? Our understanding of history changes constantly, and has for as long as humans have been alive.
  - kardianos 3y ago
    No, our understanding of history has not fundamentally changed constantly. This is categorically false.
    - archagon 3y ago
      It's quite clear that you've never actually studied history.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Talk to a historian. I think there's an Ask an Historian subreddit, where you'll get excellent, nuanced, reasonable perspective from actual historians.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Do you need a link to actual historians discussing the breadth of historian opinion on particular topics and the evolution of thought over time on interpretation of historical events? Such things are commonplace and easy to find.
      - kardianos 3y ago
        You'all are responding like a 100 token LLM. The context is, "is an activist method" necessary, or could the existing objective viewpoint take into account a fuller understanding of history over time. So yes. Of course we gain a better understanding of history. Does that require activist methods? Throwing out old methods? Is the change fundamental to methodology? No. This is a real paper published by the University of Oregon under these new activist "methods". I present "Feminist Glacier Studies". It adds nothing of value and if anything, reduces the net value of the field. This is what a non-objectivity lens does to the field of knowledge. It destroys it. History is the same way. And no, Joan de Arc was not trans. https://courses.ecology.uga.edu/ecol8000-materials/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2022/08/Carey-et-al.-2016.pdf https://courses.ecology.uga.edu/ecol8000-materials/wp-conten...
s1artibartfast 3y ago
There are lots of topics being conflated here IMO. There are surely questions of subjectivity and bias, but I think they are distinct and perhaps secondary to the question of intellectual honesty and humility. My favorite thinkers with intellectual honesty and humility will not only admit, but highlight the biggest challenges to what they believe. They can acknowledge counterpoints and tradeoffs. When someone intentionally dodges or avoids the weakness of their own opinions, they are practicing rhetoric and manipulation, not education and truth-seeking. This is not so much an act of internal bias, but proactively attempting to mislead and instill bias in others. How many people can or will identify and confront the strongest possible counterargument against what they think without changing the subject?

kardianos 3y ago

You are joining a truth to a lie. Truth: Social normal and bias correlate. Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms. I believe in the ideals you are talking about - I think they are essential. If we don't look at how we fail those ideals, how our biases have resulted in untruths, obviously we won't get closer to them. We need to face the cold, difficult truths: I encourage you to read histories of those fields; it is overwhelmingly the case that bias has affected them in significant ways. As simple examples, much of engineering has historically assumed male users; not only does that affect seatbelt usage or bulletproof vest usage in the military (a real thing!), but it also excludes women from doing certain jobs - the equipment is made for men but not for women. Much of medical research has been on males for male problems - for example, heart disease research for a long time used only male subjects, though the disease affects women differently. Part of the reason is the training (school) and hiring bias toward male researchers, as many studies have demonstrated (some simply by removing author names). It's self-perpetuating: We are biased, of course, to hire people like ourselves (an early lesson in business school) and to focus on problems we have experience with. You need someone to push to disrupt that cycle, force women, in these examples, into the system. Otherwise, it just keeps running on that way forever.
- alasdair_ 3y ago
  >Much of medical research has been on males for male problems Or even men for pills designed for women. e.g. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-tested-on-men/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-test...
- kardianos 3y ago
  ... None of those biases require anything remotely like "activism" found in today's environments. All of those can be addressed with ease in existing objective frameworks.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    What reason do you have to say that? These biases have persisted for generations, even millenia in some cases. Generally, they don't change without pressure and, as MLK said, 'tension'. Plus, what is so bad about activism? What is wrong with people actively participating in democracy? It's nothing compared to the consequences of racism, sexism, etc.
  - thereticent 3y ago
    There is some fundamental disconnect in your position if you think applying an objective framework will correct scientific and educational practice. The fact that you seem to be neglecting is that science and science education are social practices. All activism is, is an attempt to change social practices. It's not all somehow unclean or wrong or anti-truth.
archagon 3y ago
You think history is independent of social norms? Our understanding of history changes constantly, and has for as long as humans have been alive.
- kardianos 3y ago
  No, our understanding of history has not fundamentally changed constantly. This is categorically false.
  - archagon 3y ago
    It's quite clear that you've never actually studied history.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Talk to a historian. I think there's an Ask an Historian subreddit, where you'll get excellent, nuanced, reasonable perspective from actual historians.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Do you need a link to actual historians discussing the breadth of historian opinion on particular topics and the evolution of thought over time on interpretation of historical events? Such things are commonplace and easy to find.
    - kardianos 3y ago
      You'all are responding like a 100 token LLM. The context is, "is an activist method" necessary, or could the existing objective viewpoint take into account a fuller understanding of history over time. So yes. Of course we gain a better understanding of history. Does that require activist methods? Throwing out old methods? Is the change fundamental to methodology? No. This is a real paper published by the University of Oregon under these new activist "methods". I present "Feminist Glacier Studies". It adds nothing of value and if anything, reduces the net value of the field. This is what a non-objectivity lens does to the field of knowledge. It destroys it. History is the same way. And no, Joan de Arc was not trans. https://courses.ecology.uga.edu/ecol8000-materials/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2022/08/Carey-et-al.-2016.pdf https://courses.ecology.uga.edu/ecol8000-materials/wp-conten...

s1artibartfast 3y ago

There are lots of topics being conflated here IMO. There are surely questions of subjectivity and bias, but I think they are distinct and perhaps secondary to the question of intellectual honesty and humility. My favorite thinkers with intellectual honesty and humility will not only admit, but highlight the biggest challenges to what they believe. They can acknowledge counterpoints and tradeoffs. When someone intentionally dodges or avoids the weakness of their own opinions, they are practicing rhetoric and manipulation, not education and truth-seeking. This is not so much an act of internal bias, but proactively attempting to mislead and instill bias in others. How many people can or will identify and confront the strongest possible counterargument against what they think without changing the subject?