Slashdot Mirror
Reason Excoriates Paper On "Glaciers, Gender, and Science" (reason.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Reason.com's Robby Soave criticizes an article published in the journal Progress in Human Geography, for being "utterly incomprehensible," and "the least essential paper ever written." Entitled Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change, the article is authored by researchers at the University of Oregon and funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Despite being filled with "buzzwords -- colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc. -- with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke," the article is accompanied by an enthusiastic press release from the University of Oregon, stating that "glacier research has been intertwined with gender relations, masculine cultures of exploration, geopolitics, and individual and institutional power. That, in turn, led to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. ... Melting glaciers are today considered a national security risk for numerous countries,' [one of the researchers] said. 'Power and colonialism have shaped the science.' That message is detailed extensively in the paper."
The NSF is usually very careful about who it gives money to; only something like 10% of funding request are granted. For those who are curious, the basic grant information on this grant is available from the NSF:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch...
The grant was done through the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (specifically the division of Social and Economic Sciences) -- as opposed to the Geosciences Directorate, which I believe normally handles the climate change work. (The NSF is divided into different parts for funding different areas.)
FWIW, the house science committee has long been working to cut the budget for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. I'm sure that good work gets funded by that directorate, but it sure does make me pissed that a BS grant like this gets funded, while more useful grants in applied physics (my area) don't get funded.
I wouldn't pin this bad grant on the NSF as a whole. Hopefully it's the exception for that directorate rather than the rule.
Athen used to be fine and non imperialist until it stopped being an imperfect democracy to embrace Plato's "meritocratic" Republic based on fame and money.
Then, greek civilization disappeared in a war driven by the private interest of a few incompetent selfish people.
Such as Alcibiade, the one described as Socrates lover. Plato's master.
Remember Periclès words that echoes Eisenhower's. Ploutocracy is the ennemy of democracy.
"Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree,"
In the US, once upon a time, there was a layer of separation between the people and the federal government (the exception being the House of Representatives). Senators were mostly appointed by state legislatures and states would select who they wanted to be President by a popular vote and electors would actually VOTE but their votes were weighted by the number of representatives they had in congress (not quite, but close to populations).
We've been moving away from that and more towards direct democracy. Senators are now popularly elected. Some states are toying with the idea of splitting electors. Supreme court justices are now appointed based on their views rather than their understanding of the constitution and their qualifications as jurists. Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows.
To our founders, democracy was just as if not more scary than monarchy. Democracy, as scary as it was, was reined in and used as a tool to give the people a chance to "undo" or "fix" a government that went too far. The Constitution not only defines the governments powers, but by design, limited the damage the "mob" could do by limiting their voice -- the Constitution, which SHOULD be protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms has been nibbled away by rulings not based on reason and the constitution but by passions.
I honestly don't know if this snowball can be stopped. One of our nations rally crys at birth was "no taxation without representation". We have countless examples of the opposite (which I believe to be equally bad) -- representation without taxation. With both the Senate and House being elected by the people directly and the constitution being "interpreted" based on things other than it's intent and a senate (directly elected by the people) it makes it impossible to get a Justice appointed who doesn't fit the majority parties "group think". There is very little to counter the will of the people who have no skin in the game to ask for more as they don't need to pay for it.
We can focus all we want on the 1% -- but the fact is if you seize all their wealth in the US, you wouldn't even be able to cover a few years of deficit spending (never mind paying the debt) -- and in the meantime you've wreaked the economy.