4 ms·

Let's Destroy American Science

34 points by voxadam 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
ddahlen 4mo ago
You can put in a public comment on these changes here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10...
like_any_other 4mo ago
[flagged]
- defrost 4mo ago
  I picked one and looked it: > were prosecuted by the state (albeit in Sweden) for true findings that harmed that ideology [9]. is a mischaracterisation. They were investigated at the insistence of a single third party (I found no indication of prosecution, fines, etc) for making public parts of medical data which potentially exceeded their guidelines and ethical constraints given for access. This is a problem facing almost all epidemiological studies based on detailed data from small communities.
- _kulang 4mo ago
  Look. Academia is also tertiary education. To have teachers not practice a diversity mindset is to the detriment of all else. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all. I think the mistake you make is attributing all of this to ideology as if it is the only thing that matters. That is such a post-modern and bleak world view when in fact the majority of people are looking for opportunity. Diversity of thinking, as AI itself sort of proves, is a driver of innovation within a given environment and culture. AI’s usefulness is directly related to the diversity of data on which it is trained and nothing else. I will say to have DEI policy cover research is a terrible thing; but how many examples do you really have? How many are proven; scientists are not arbiters for truth themselves and colour science as much as policy and media. There will always be extreme outliers in all directions and mistakes, and what have you. The solution is to relax those constraints,not to fight back with more. But that’s okay, because academia will once again become the domain of those rich and fortunate enough to practice it in their free time. Obviously, it has no value to the administration outside of the results it returns to business and productivity. So there’s not point arguing about something that won’t be here
  - ETH_start 4mo ago
    Berkeley's rubric was docking people for saying they want to "treat everyone the same". Arizona universities were requiring DEI statements in up to 80% of job postings. That's not just "some bias".
    - lern_too_spel 4mo ago
      If you actually look at the rubric, that statement is described as a vague response to the question, not one promoting an "incorrect" ideology, and the rubric shows other responses with more specificity that would be graded better. The source given by GGP cites this quote from another article by John Sailer of the Manhattan Institute, who originally pulled that quote out of context to promote a right wing culture war narrative for MI's flagship rag, The City Journal, which publishes an alternative college ranking that laughably ranks The University of Florida first. Caltech is 21st, below ASU, and Harvard is 37th. I didn't know who these people were fooling, but GGP demonstrated that it's unfortunately not nobody.
      - ETH_start 4mo ago
        The rubric explicitly gives a low score to candidates who "state the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and 'treat everyone the same'". It listed a number of other positions that it would penalize, with the totality of tbe effect being to actively downgrade the colorblind position, and reward DEI positions.
        lern_too_spel 4mo ago
        You do understand that the state is entrusted to fix problems in society and that having some pockets of society not contribute as well as other pockets is a problem, right? Pretending a problem doesn't exist ("ignoring their backgrounds") is not a good way to solve a problem. That is the error in that statement, not the "treat everyone the same" part, which is merely overly vague. If you treat everyone with the goal of trying to get them to succeed, this necessarily involves understanding the backgrounds of the people you're trying to help. Ramanujan didn't have a background in formal mathematical proof, but Hardy was able to get him to do great things by understanding his strengths and filling in the gaps. Typically, the people against programs that attempt to solve these problems assume that some pockets of society are unfixable. Korea had a literacy rate of 22% in 1945. These people, had they existed in 1945, would have said, "Well, that's just the normal order of things. No need to try to fix it because you can't."
- habinero 4mo ago
  Can you go spread your weird obsession somewhere else, please?
  - sharpshift 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - habinero 4mo ago
      There's nothing to discuss? Clearly this is someone who doesn't want to communicate, and politely asking them to go elsewhere is appropriate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - sharpshift 4mo ago
        Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment? The comment you're replying too makes a certain case with a lot of supporting evidence. Remember that the downvote is not a disagree button.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - user3939382 4mo ago
        In what way do they “clearly” not want to communicate? Sounds more like your feelings are hurt that someone is speaking against your political tribe.
  - throwawaypath 4mo ago
    [flagged]
ETH_start 4mo ago
Given the ideological capture of American science, I don't see how it gets saved without a drastic overhaul of the kind this administration is pushing. We now have conferences about decolonizing scientific disciplines, which is absurd. These fields are filled with people who believe in censorship and are completely dogmatic about whether this kind of ideology should be part of their disciplines at all. It's hard to even have a dialogue about it because the people pushing this stuff refuse to entertain any real criticism of their core principles.
- habinero 4mo ago
  Mmm. What have you done to make sure you're not letting your ideology lead you into misinformation and misunderstanding? In my experience, people who get mad about "decolonization" tend to either not understand what's actually being discussed or they got ragebaited by something inconsequential that they've blown up to ridiculous proportions. I assume you don't think you're somehow immune from this phenomenon?
  - throwawaypath 4mo ago
    In my experience, people who get mad about "decolonization" tend to either fully understand what's actually being discussed or they got ragebaited by something consequential that they've blown up to rational proportions.
    - ETH_start 4mo ago
      Can you elaborate how I'm not understanding what the decolonization movement is and how properly understood it belongs in science?
      - throwawaypath 4mo ago
        Reread my comment. It doesn't belong in science.
  - ETH_start 4mo ago

34 points by voxadam 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

You can put in a public comment on these changes here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10...

like_any_other 4mo ago

[flagged]

defrost 4mo ago
I picked one and looked it: > were prosecuted by the state (albeit in Sweden) for true findings that harmed that ideology [9]. is a mischaracterisation. They were investigated at the insistence of a single third party (I found no indication of prosecution, fines, etc) for making public parts of medical data which potentially exceeded their guidelines and ethical constraints given for access. This is a problem facing almost all epidemiological studies based on detailed data from small communities.
_kulang 4mo ago
Look. Academia is also tertiary education. To have teachers not practice a diversity mindset is to the detriment of all else. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all. I think the mistake you make is attributing all of this to ideology as if it is the only thing that matters. That is such a post-modern and bleak world view when in fact the majority of people are looking for opportunity. Diversity of thinking, as AI itself sort of proves, is a driver of innovation within a given environment and culture. AI’s usefulness is directly related to the diversity of data on which it is trained and nothing else. I will say to have DEI policy cover research is a terrible thing; but how many examples do you really have? How many are proven; scientists are not arbiters for truth themselves and colour science as much as policy and media. There will always be extreme outliers in all directions and mistakes, and what have you. The solution is to relax those constraints,not to fight back with more. But that’s okay, because academia will once again become the domain of those rich and fortunate enough to practice it in their free time. Obviously, it has no value to the administration outside of the results it returns to business and productivity. So there’s not point arguing about something that won’t be here
- ETH_start 4mo ago
  Berkeley's rubric was docking people for saying they want to "treat everyone the same". Arizona universities were requiring DEI statements in up to 80% of job postings. That's not just "some bias".
  - lern_too_spel 4mo ago
    If you actually look at the rubric, that statement is described as a vague response to the question, not one promoting an "incorrect" ideology, and the rubric shows other responses with more specificity that would be graded better. The source given by GGP cites this quote from another article by John Sailer of the Manhattan Institute, who originally pulled that quote out of context to promote a right wing culture war narrative for MI's flagship rag, The City Journal, which publishes an alternative college ranking that laughably ranks The University of Florida first. Caltech is 21st, below ASU, and Harvard is 37th. I didn't know who these people were fooling, but GGP demonstrated that it's unfortunately not nobody.
    - ETH_start 4mo ago
      The rubric explicitly gives a low score to candidates who "state the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and 'treat everyone the same'". It listed a number of other positions that it would penalize, with the totality of tbe effect being to actively downgrade the colorblind position, and reward DEI positions.
      - lern_too_spel 4mo ago
        You do understand that the state is entrusted to fix problems in society and that having some pockets of society not contribute as well as other pockets is a problem, right? Pretending a problem doesn't exist ("ignoring their backgrounds") is not a good way to solve a problem. That is the error in that statement, not the "treat everyone the same" part, which is merely overly vague. If you treat everyone with the goal of trying to get them to succeed, this necessarily involves understanding the backgrounds of the people you're trying to help. Ramanujan didn't have a background in formal mathematical proof, but Hardy was able to get him to do great things by understanding his strengths and filling in the gaps. Typically, the people against programs that attempt to solve these problems assume that some pockets of society are unfixable. Korea had a literacy rate of 22% in 1945. These people, had they existed in 1945, would have said, "Well, that's just the normal order of things. No need to try to fix it because you can't."
habinero 4mo ago
Can you go spread your weird obsession somewhere else, please?
- sharpshift 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - habinero 4mo ago
    There's nothing to discuss? Clearly this is someone who doesn't want to communicate, and politely asking them to go elsewhere is appropriate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - sharpshift 4mo ago
      Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment? The comment you're replying too makes a certain case with a lot of supporting evidence. Remember that the downvote is not a disagree button.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - user3939382 4mo ago
      In what way do they “clearly” not want to communicate? Sounds more like your feelings are hurt that someone is speaking against your political tribe.
- throwawaypath 4mo ago
  [flagged]

ETH_start 4mo ago

Given the ideological capture of American science, I don't see how it gets saved without a drastic overhaul of the kind this administration is pushing. We now have conferences about decolonizing scientific disciplines, which is absurd. These fields are filled with people who believe in censorship and are completely dogmatic about whether this kind of ideology should be part of their disciplines at all. It's hard to even have a dialogue about it because the people pushing this stuff refuse to entertain any real criticism of their core principles.

habinero 4mo ago
Mmm. What have you done to make sure you're not letting your ideology lead you into misinformation and misunderstanding? In my experience, people who get mad about "decolonization" tend to either not understand what's actually being discussed or they got ragebaited by something inconsequential that they've blown up to ridiculous proportions. I assume you don't think you're somehow immune from this phenomenon?
- throwawaypath 4mo ago
  In my experience, people who get mad about "decolonization" tend to either fully understand what's actually being discussed or they got ragebaited by something consequential that they've blown up to rational proportions.
  - ETH_start 4mo ago
    Can you elaborate how I'm not understanding what the decolonization movement is and how properly understood it belongs in science?
    - throwawaypath 4mo ago
      Reread my comment. It doesn't belong in science.
- ETH_start 4mo ago