4 ms·

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...

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...