12 ms·
It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back
by hdlothia 1y ago
It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back
- input_sh 1y agoScientists are allowed to have opinions outside of their work and share them.
- hdlothia 1y agoIt is 100% allowed, I just don't think it's really helpful or beneficial for them or society Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo.
- Braxton1980 1y ago>Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. How do they do that?
- kelipso 1y agoThe “I am an expert, so listen to me drone about some political topic that’s vaguely related to my expertise” has been a thing for years now. And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. In general, it makes scientists look really naive and makes them lose credibility when they talk about actual science.
- wat10000 1y agoDo they have any real influence? I’m about a million times more concerned about politicians who act like they have worthwhile opinions about science.
- jonathanstrange 1y agoJordan Peterson comes to my mind. Although I have no respect for his opinions at all, I still think that, in the end, scientists have their political views and should be allowed to talk about them. What they shouldn't be allowed is to insinuate that these views are anything other than their personal views. Hate speech and political extremism should also not be allowed because these damage the reputation of their university. Other than that, I don't think it's right to tell them not to use their status to influence politics and society towards what they perceive as making the world better. On the contrary, they might have some duty to do just that.
- DonHopkins 1y agoSo it's "political" to disagree about Tylenol causing autism, or injecting disinfectant curing Covid?
- kelipso 1y agoYou are making a classic motte and bailey argument.
- Braxton1980 1y agoWhat makes something "political"?
- Braxton1980 1y agoIf a person is an expert on a topic then it makes sense for them to have a higher probability of being correct. >And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position?
- kelipso 1y agoYes, that’s the typical argument but the problem is that they veer way out of their lane. And their lane is in reality very narrow and academically focused. When these experts go into politics and activism, their biases show and consequently the credibility of them and their unfortunate colleagues who don’t go into politics get lowered. > What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position? I don’t live under a rock.
- Braxton1980 1y ago> When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people in general but I wanted to mention it.
- snickerbockers 1y ago>What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests surrounding the murder of george floyd happened. This is a topic they have expertise on (or at least they claim to) so it's certainly within their lane, but the abrupt change in policy was obviously motivated by their political leanings and it did *a lot* to hurt their personal credibility as well as perceptions of the pandemic in general. [1] IDK how many of them should actually be considered 'experts' as this is not a field I follow, but they were presented as such in the media and so that is how they are perceived.
- felixgallo 1y agoyou are lying; this did not happen.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- selectodude 1y ago> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo. Yep, there it is. You’re just upset that they don’t have your opinions.
- hdlothia 1y agohttps://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... I supported blm and still do. The CDC should have stayed out of it.
- miltonlost 1y agoThe one mention of the CDC in that article doesn't mention anything about it changing guidlines for BLM. So you're lying.
- DonHopkins 1y ago[flagged]
- hdlothia 1y agoYou are right, public health officials instead of cdc would be the better way to phrase it.
- miltonlost 1y ago> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo. When did this happen?
- MontyCarloHall 1y agoAFAIK, the CDC itself made no such official statement, but many prominent figures in public health, including a former CDC director [0], said just that. [0] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
- renlo 1y ago[flagged]
- misiti3780 1y agoCDC never said it, a lot of prominent heath officials did though.
- wat10000 1y agoSo why is it beneficial for you to have and express political opinions but not them? Or are you deliberately doing something harmful here?
- randyhaute 1y ago[flagged]
- archagon 1y ago> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter That’s… not what they said? They said it was probably relatively safe to attend a protest because it was happening outdoors and Covid spread mostly through accumulated aerosols. It turned out to be good guidance: practically no one gets Covid that way unless a sick person is actively coughing on them.
- 3eb7988a1663 1y agoSo nobody is allowed to use their notoriety to amplify their posts? No more athletes, musicians, artists, whatever. Everyone must be anonymous. Or is it strictly scientists who are not allowed to post if their profession is known?
- didntknowyou 1y agoso you would prefer to hear opinions from marketers and influencers?
- sejje 1y agoReddit, pseudo-anonymously, is mostly where I do that, not where I've set up my professional presence.
- omoikane 1y agoMaybe the parent is lamenting how some people post a lot of interesting scientific content, but also a whole lot of other content on topics that they are not interested in, and unfortunately most social networks require following all aspects of a person and not just the parts that interest you. Google+ had it right where you can follow just a community, and also you can selectively make your participation in certain communities visible in your public profile. I am not sure if Bluesky or Mastodon have something similar.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoOk but if I'm a radiologist opining about social media, I'm no longer practicing science. I'm just some guy with an opinion. "Scientists say..." is becoming just another "studies show...". You can always find a scientist or a study or an "expert" to push whatever agenda the media outlet has. Nothing about this is remotely scientific.
- bell-cot 1y ago> Scientists are allowed... Literally true, perhaps. But have you ever noticed how reluctant non-scientist professionals are to voice opinions in their chosen fields? Lawyers preface everything with "not your lawyer", "not my area of practice...", "I'd have to look into the details of that case...", etc. Accountants similarly. Doctors similarly. Engineers similarly. Vs. it seems to be accepted practice for a nuclear physicist to speak ex cathedra about epidemiology, climatology, etc.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nomdep 1y agoUnless is a opinion not shared by their colleagues
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 1y agoWhat do you mean? Activism is an essential part of science but maybe I’m misunderstanding your use of “activist.”
- hdlothia 1y agoI mean things like nature starting to make endorsements for president. Overly political for no reason.
- parrellel 1y agoThey are planning on de-orbiting weather satellites because the administration doesn't believe in climate change. Nature was maybe on to something.
- hdlothia 1y agohttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5. One study says the endorsement had little effect on voting intention but damaged credibility and perception of scientists.
- DonHopkins 1y agoThen why is it that YOU are working so hard to damage the credibility and perception of scientists?
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago[flagged]
- miltonlost 1y agoWhen one political party is explicitly anti-science in its goals and aims and actions (RFK, global warming as a hoax, anti-vaxx, COVID as a hoax), Nature endorsing the person who is pro-science isn't political; it's existential. This is not "no reason". It's just not the reason you like because for some reason.
- snickerbockers 1y agoActual quote: "Twitter, once considered the central gathering place for scientists on social media...".
- coeneedell 1y agoIt’s basically impossible to make a career as a scientist these days without constantly promoting yourself and your work unfortunately. It’s very tiring and makes it difficult to focus on science. This is one of the reasons I changed careers.
- Jgrubb 1y agoI feel the same way about software, what career did you switch to?
- sejje 1y agoThat's bad, too, but true in many professions I think. But I think what the GP means is let's do science, let's not do hot-political-topics-as-science.
- tapoxi 1y agoUnfortunately science is unavoidably a political hot topic. Climate change denialism is the norm in the United States, we've somehow decided Tylenol causes autism in the past week, etc.
- kortilla 1y agoIf you think either of those represent any meaningful portion of science you need to re-evaluate your understanding of science because it’s based on a layman’s perspective. If you’re not actually involved in science you only see the scientists making news, which disproportionately selects for politically intersecting areas of research. When I was working at a major US research university in the early 2000s, it was a big deal if the scientific publications got any mainstream press at all. Countless papers push the boundaries of science in major journals and conferences every year and you never hear about them because they have no political implications and usually no immediate practical applications.
- shakow 1y ago> but true in many professions I think. That's true, but the other professions don't tend to be associated with (or clearly vindicate) the “above-the-crowd/holier-than-thou” attitude – and I say that as an ex-scientist, for the same reason (among others) as the poster above.
- techblueberry 1y agoWhat does this even mean? “Sure all the research shows X, but you can also believe y or even z because nothing really matters”
- kabdib 1y agomy dad was an ecologist in the 70s, and did a lot of early climate change stuff (getting ground truth for LandSat, etc.) that's always been a fun conversation
- hdlothia 1y agoThat does sound super interesting.He probably had a real fun time doing science in the 70s.
- miltonlost 1y agoWhen would that be? Needs to be after science stops being politicized by the Republican party. Scientists must be activists when anti-science is de jour.
- an0malous 1y agoX is not politically neutral, Elon openly talks about recalibrating Grok whenever it says something too liberal like recent discussions about gun violence. Scientists should embrace decentralization and use Mastodon in my opinion. Bluesky will meet the same fate as Twitter and X one day
- hdlothia 1y agoYeah x is a mess. When scientists say it's nice to just post about science on bluesky without being called slurs or harassed, I believe them.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoX/Twitter has never been politically neutral. It's just that the pendulum has swung the other way.
- archagon 1y agoThe pendulum has broken out of the clock and is clattering on the floor.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoIndeed, every action has an equal and opposite reaction
- didibus 1y agoCan't you fork Bluesky whenever you'd want too? I thought that was the idea? That the data and connections and accounts are all transferable.
- rob_c 1y ago> Scientist should... Have you seen the state of scientific "computing".
- falcor84 1y agoOn a side note, I still can't get used to how wanting to restrict access to guns is considered a "liberal" stance.
- dark__paladin 1y agoThis attitude of "let's leave politics out of this" is a major contributing factor to this mess we're in.
- intended 1y agoI doubt it. Most scientists are not activists. Yet, any scientist who achieves anything notable, has to be trained on how to deal with the media. Science, and facts themselves, are political now.
- outside1234 1y agoSimply expressing the fact that climate change is happening is considered “activism” by some folks (and especially on X). Asking them to “not be activists” is really a request for them to self police their speech in a way that fits their worldview. This is not restricted to scientists by the way. Just look at the different response to how the NFL handled Charlie Kirk’s death with official moments of silence vs. Colin Kaepernick kneeing for police brutality. One is supported, one is suppressed.
- greesil 1y agoScience was defunded by politics, and sometimes is political due to existing interests. Why shouldn't scientists talk about politics?
- throwawaymaths 1y ago(most) science was also funded by politics.
- greesil 1y agoHello legacy of ww2. Yup.
- kortilla 1y agoLack of self control or awareness. People make the mistake of thinking that because they are informed on one topic that happens to be political that their opinions on other political topics are relevant. I’m fine seeing scientists arguing for the importance of science on social media. I don’t want to hear rants about LGBTQ+ people from geologists.
- greesil 1y ago"I don’t want to hear rants about LGBTQ+ people from geologists." Build the filter bubble you want, not the one you've got.
- frm88 1y agoWhy should a LGBTQ+ geologist not talk about LGBTQ+ stuff. That makes no sense. Scientists are human, they have the same attributes as other humans, sex and politics among them.
- kortilla 1y agoThey abuse their following gained from expertise to talk about stuff they have no expertise in.
- whizzter 1y agoIf science results on sane topics like vaccines weren't attacked for not being in-line with loony politics then they wouldn't have to be "activists".
- randyhaute 1y agoRose colored glasses. Science from the start has challenged status quo of churches and god kings You're not interested in science but kowtowing to perceived authority
- armchairhacker 1y agoWhy don't scientists publish anonymously? We already have double-blind peer review. This seems like such an obvious idea, there must be some issue. Authors can still get reputation, recognition, and compensation for their papers, without people knowing who wrote what paper, via public/private keys and blockchain. Every time an author publishes a paper, they generate a new address and attach the public key to it. Judges send awards (NFTs) and compensation to the key without knowing who holds it, and if the same award type is given to multiple papers, authors can display it without anyone knowing which paper is theirs. With LLMs even writing style can be erased (and as a side effect, the paper can be written in different formats for different audiences). Judges can use objective criteria so they can't be bribed without others noticing; in cases where the paper is an algorithm and the criteria is a formal proof, the "judge" can be a smart contract (in practice I think that would be a small minority of papers, but it would still be hard for a judge to nominate an undeserving paper while avoiding skeptics, because a deserving paper would match the not-fully-objective criteria according to a wide audience). Any other potential flaws?
- raincole 1y agoHow to force not only one, but three solutions into a non-existing problem. This must be a parody of cryto bros/AI bros, right.
- armchairhacker 1y agoThose may not be the solutions, but the problem certainly exists. I'm in academia and even I'll admit it has a lot of nepotism. People who are famous or infamous are identified despite peer-review (stylometry and subject) and the reviewers are biased for or against them. Also see comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45396377#45396617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45396377#45396617: "It’s basically impossible to make a career as a scientist these days without constantly promoting yourself and your work unfortunately". If attaching your name to a paper becomes taboo, perhaps promotion will be less important, and if results can be judged algorithmically, definitely so.
- ebiester 1y ago
- butterfi 1y agoIt would be nice if some politicians/media outlets didn't subvert or misrepresent science for their own gains. Yet here we are.
- SanjayMehta 1y agoThey can be scientists on both platforms. Bluesky is just the ideological opposite of whatever X is today, but with more blocking and censorship than even what Twitter had under Dorsey.
- seadan83 1y agoI think you're assuming that dichotomy. There was an observation that Trump supporters derided liberals for loving biden. The observation pointed out a false equivalence, "the other side is doing the same thing", we love Trump, so they must love their leader too. Or, do you some sort of systematic evidence that evaluates the politics across all of bluesky in comparison to X? I don't think there is such evidence to know that bluesy is the polar opposite of Twitter.
- SanjayMehta 1y agoYou don’t need to conduct a systematic study, just lurk on Bluesky for a week, nay, a day. If you express an opinion, you’ll be blocked, and Bluesky has layers of blocking, and they love it.
- Jaygles 1y agoWhen the government (or the public) starts asserting basic facts aren't true, scientists become activists against their will
- tdb7893 1y agoSo firstly most scientists already aren't really activists in any meaningful way, it seems like you're implying most are on twitter/bluesky doing activism and the vast majority aren't really. Secondly I'm confused who people think should be able to be activists in a democracy? Scientists seem like a good candidate for people that should do activism in a healthy democracy.
- pm90 1y agoIf you’re gonna cut science funding on a massive scale, scientists will become activists.
- CamperBob2 1y agoIt would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists So you've found a way to say "My job isn't at risk from a vindictive POTUS" in 14 words instead of 9. Great.
- tootie 1y agoExact opposite. Science is under attack by politics and we need authoritative voices explaining how dangerous this is. Why would scientists not be allowed to offer opinions on their observations? That's basically the same thing as science.
- kalleboo 1y agoMaybe when activists stop pretending to be scientists the scientists can stop being activists.