5 ms·

>You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science This seems incredi

by chez17 12y ago

>You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science. You have a point, but it's very defeatist. You're essentially saying "people can get turned off by opposing views. To remedy this, we'll make sure they don't hear any opposing views". The remedy is to expose people to more opposing views, not shelter them.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
> This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science. Ideally people shouldn't be bringing any politics into science. But as sad as it is, sometimes you have to deal with politics to get your research sponsored, funded, and widely accepted. That's reality; please feel free to tilt against that windmill, and more power to you if you can manage to change it. Meanwhile, there's always going to be a subset of scientists (and affiliated non-scientists good at PR) who serve as the public face of a project, and like it or not, they'll be selected for criteria other than how good they are at science. As much as you might wish that to not be the case, rejecting it will not lead to the outcomes you desire. This is closely related to the issue of presentability and fashion. Many scientists and engineers object to notions of fashion and other social patterns that they rather reasonably believe should not matter; that objection is fine. But that then turns into a kind of is-ought fallacious reasoning, concluding that because those things shouldn't matter, caring about them isn't important, or worse yet that actively opposing them is worthwhile. And thus you have the stereotype of the engineer in T-shirt and jeans no matter the occasion. The rational reasoning says "OK, perhaps those things shouldn't matter, but in practice they do matter, so live with that and learn to use it when it benefits you". When it comes to portraying science (or anything else) in popular culture, many problems are isomorphic to fashion, and like it or not the rational choice is to be fashionable.
- chez17 12y ago
  At what point does it become a self fulfilling prophecy? If we continue to cater to people who insist on demanding that research and funding go to the prettiest scientist or the on that has the best power point who is to blame when things like this happen? I think it's better to not be an enabler. Sure, it may be harder and more complicated, but to me it's the right thing to do. We're letting ignorance win when we have we shelter the ignorant.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    I agree to some level, especially regarding politics and personality, but go back and look at the article we're commenting on. Does that sound like a person who should be the public face of any project?
    - calibraxis 12y ago
      Yes, definitely! Then scientists might be considered interesting human beings.

by chez17 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago

> This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science. Ideally people shouldn't be bringing any politics into science. But as sad as it is, sometimes you have to deal with politics to get your research sponsored, funded, and widely accepted. That's reality; please feel free to tilt against that windmill, and more power to you if you can manage to change it. Meanwhile, there's always going to be a subset of scientists (and affiliated non-scientists good at PR) who serve as the public face of a project, and like it or not, they'll be selected for criteria other than how good they are at science. As much as you might wish that to not be the case, rejecting it will not lead to the outcomes you desire. This is closely related to the issue of presentability and fashion. Many scientists and engineers object to notions of fashion and other social patterns that they rather reasonably believe should not matter; that objection is fine. But that then turns into a kind of is-ought fallacious reasoning, concluding that because those things shouldn't matter, caring about them isn't important, or worse yet that actively opposing them is worthwhile. And thus you have the stereotype of the engineer in T-shirt and jeans no matter the occasion. The rational reasoning says "OK, perhaps those things shouldn't matter, but in practice they do matter, so live with that and learn to use it when it benefits you". When it comes to portraying science (or anything else) in popular culture, many problems are isomorphic to fashion, and like it or not the rational choice is to be fashionable.

chez17 12y ago
At what point does it become a self fulfilling prophecy? If we continue to cater to people who insist on demanding that research and funding go to the prettiest scientist or the on that has the best power point who is to blame when things like this happen? I think it's better to not be an enabler. Sure, it may be harder and more complicated, but to me it's the right thing to do. We're letting ignorance win when we have we shelter the ignorant.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  I agree to some level, especially regarding politics and personality, but go back and look at the article we're commenting on. Does that sound like a person who should be the public face of any project?
  - calibraxis 12y ago
    Yes, definitely! Then scientists might be considered interesting human beings.