Slashdot Mirror
'Science Must Clean Up Its Act' (scientificamerican.com)
Our science community still struggles with diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, including systemic bias, harassment, and discrimination among other things, writes Heather Metcalf, mathematician, computer scientist, social scientist, and also the director of research for the Association for Women in Science. From her piece, in which she has shared both personal anecdotes and general examples, for the Scientific American: [...] Take the recent March for Science. Nearly two weeks ago, scientists and science supporters gathered in Washington, D.C, and around the globe to stand up for "robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity" and put forth a vision of science that "serves the interests of all humans, not just those in power." However, in its attempts to remain apolitical and objective, the march focused primarily on funding and communication aspects of its mission while losing sight of the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged. [...] In the early days of its organizing, the march offered up a strong statement of solidarity acknowledging the complacency with which the scientific community as a whole has handled issues that primarily impact marginalized communities: "many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent -- attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues. Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination. In order to move forward as a scientific community, we must address and actively work to unlearn our problematic past and present, to make science available to everyone." This messaging was removed and replaced after much pushback, largely from white men, about the need to remain apolitical and objective. These debates resulted in many women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ scientists, and their allies feeling ostracized and even receiving disrespectful and hateful messages about their place in science generally and in M4S specifically. Rather than standing up for a science that is available to everyone, these conversations and the march itself merely served represent an exclusionary science by reinforcing longstanding, divisive norms within the scientific community, all in the name of objectivity..
I can't be the only one extremely disappointed with this article.
The subject "Science Needs to Clean Up Its Act" was so promising - and then its about how the scientific community needs to be more PC - more diversified - more accepting of participating in peoples' personal self-image and validating them - less harassment.
Science *does* need to clean up its act. It needs to harass scientists who publish nonsense that can't be replicated. It needs to purge administrative non-sense that clouds the pursuit of truth. It needs to blacklist scientists who publish fraud, and those who use fake contact information to peer-review their own research.
Instead of trying to broaden scientific pursuit to LGBTXYZ by making scientists acknowledge their white cis privilege and beg forgiveness, science needs to bleach its festering sores clean of festering disease, clinically diagnose and treat the cancerous tumors in its ranks, and make science EQUALLY appealing to everyone of any sex, race, creed, or religion who wants to pursue scientific achievement absent this horrific PC attitude.
Scientists aren't known for going along with compelled groupthink
I take it, you've never read or taken a course in conservation biology. The political group think is strong with them.
Not true. I heard a brilliant talk by Joanna Rutkowska a while ago. She didn't waste a minute on bullshit.
You get to hear a lot about women in science or technology from women who know neither science nor technology. Those that do know it needn't talk about bullshit, they have something meaningful to talk about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged.
I'm hitting that point where "the privleged" is just an overused buzzword.
"many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent --
. . . ADA access isn't really a scientific issue. It's political. And one that has largely been won in support for the disabled. ADA compliance is pretty damn strict and if anyone finds non-compliance they can sue for thousands to millions. It's a settled issue.
Clean water is likewise pretty settled. We need it. The issues in Michigan are economic ones. The science is pretty clear: Lead fucks you up.
LGBBQWTF rights are most certainly a political issue, not a scientific one. Figuring out if furries are born with it or have been brainwashed by cartoons is a question for science. What to do about it is a matter of politics.
And that's the crux here. Science INFORMS and GUIDES policy. Science doesn't say SQUAT about what to do with immigrants. It can cut through the lies and bullshit and point out the facts and truth of the matter... but not what we ought to do about it. Now, obviously if a proposed solution or policy is argued on points that are simply shown to be false thanks to scientific research, then that's a bad policy. But if you go to sociology 101, chapter 7 isn't "how to fix race issues".
Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination.
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
pushback, largely from white men,
Way to be sexist and racist about it.
all in the name of objectivity.
. . . YES. If science and scientists can't remain objective and allow bias to taint the results then the science is BAD. And that will cause everyone to discard your findings.
Because departments run by LGBTQ and similarly "disadvantaged" people produce such high levels of scholarship:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading...
That white men should just quit- just get out of the way of people of color, whom they are repressing :
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
Look in a money and resource limited environment, we have to make hard decisions about what and who is important and what and who is not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Because feminists have sooo much to offer science, so much keen insight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That it would be a pity to let the entire social justice left be excluded merely on the basis of their inability, their differently abledness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Like the Revivvalism of the turn of the century and Scientology today, social justice is a literal cult. Unfortunately it's a cult that threatens the rational and scientific basis of Western civilization and if left unchecked, which it largely has been, will reduce the West to Feminist Lysenkoism and a and ethnic and gender-based totalitarianism.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L...
The time for passivity and tolerance in the face of civilization-deconstructing psychosis is past. It's civilization or it's the race hatred, gender-cidal cult of social justice. It won't be both. I know I have re-engineered my career to effect the total, permanent and irreversible extermination of this disease and I enjoin anyone of good will- man woman white black brown gay or straight- to join me.
You have it backwards, I'm afraid. It became a political issue only after the IPCC - which was set up with the aid of the Reagan administration - started publishing its results.
When the results showed that there was a problem that needed attention in the next 30 years, and every viable solution required an expensive shift in industry practices to avoid a much more expense solution 70-80 years down the road - that is when it became a political issue.
Because, let's face it, as a species we're happy to kick the can down the road if it means we can be wealthy and more comfortable now, and American society in particular has trouble thinking past the next quarterly earnings report.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Science does NOT require experiments. Science requires TESTABLE hypotheses.
Experiments are not required for a hypothesis to be testable. Making predictions that can be tested by new observations is the modus operandi for the scientific process.
In some cases the test is done by observing the result of an experiment, but experiments are just a convenient way of limiting the factors observed when testing a hypothesis or parts of one.
---- Sig. gone.
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
If you'll provide your answers to the above, then you've have at least thought rationally about the issue and we're ready to have a conversation and/or a logical debate about it. If you have no idea of the answers to the above questions, then you have no logical foundation for your listed beliefs and you're just a blind follower in regards to the religion of global warming.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works?
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against.
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
You sound ignorant. Are you unsure of the economic impacts of adaptation versus mitigation? Maybe do your own research.