People who say: I don't like politics and therefore I don't do politics also do politics, just badly. By trying to not play politics or always staying neutral we just hand the power to those who like to play politics. Those who like to play politics mostly like it to get power and enrich themselves.
Every disaster movie starts off with the politicians not listening to the scientists. We're going beyond the point of no return, just look at the fire's and flood's that are happening worldwide on a weekly basis. When I was young disasters happened once in a blue moon.
The biggest difference is that we are in the information age where information and disinformation are disseminated almost instantly to millions at a time, so it appears more escalated.
At the risk of adding something constructive to this thread, we need to quit it with the naive folk-Popperian caricature of science as an exercise of pure reason unconnected to human motives and start teaching the social process of science in high school if not sooner.
How do scientists and engineers spend two decades not demanding and discussing data on the distribution of steel down a couple of nearly identical skyscrapers? How do you analyze the Conservation of Momentum without knowing the mass on each level?
I think too many scientists believe that for science to have authority as a mode of knowing and as a basis for policy, we have to perpetuate a fiction about why scientists do what they do.
That fiction undermines the strongest reasons to trust science.
Think about when RFK Jr. (anyone remember him?) tweeted this.
If we adequately taught the social process of science—how scientists are funded, what motivates them, what is rewarded, why centralized authority is ineffective—folks would realize immediately what an absolute crock of horseshit this is.
@carlbergstrom.com Agreed. These ideas about how science really works (and should work) are captured in a movement that Clark Chinn, Sarit Barzilai, Ravit Duncan and others have called "epistemic education" outlined in this article (among others). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X20940683
We should reframe the process for mass consumption. Scientists are the original quote tweet dunkers. They give trophies for taking down esteemed colleagues.
Yes! I’ve been saying this throughout the pandemic when scientists are accused of groupthink. The best way for a scientist to make a name for themself is to poke holes in consensus. Scientists are the ultimate “well actually…” peeps. Contrarianism—but with actual data—is kind of the whole point!
This is not it Carl. The reasons WHY you do science and bias AS you do science are different. Please stop confounding them. Perspectives will always influence how we approach science, but trust in science will erode if our findings align with beliefs instead of data.
Let me emphasize: scientists SHOULD be political. Scientists SHOULD discuss the reasons why they do the science they do. Scientists however must be careful in confounding their findings with their politics or reasons or NO ONE WILL TRUST THE SCIENCE.
Interested to understand the connection to Strevens' book! I remember his thesis being that science succeeds because scientists stick to an "iron rule" where scientists exclude emotional attachment to e.g. theories. Indeed, FWIW, ChatGPT describe the thesis as
"argues that the defining characteristic of modern science is an "iron rule" that forces scientists to resolve disputes through observation and experiment alone, disregarding intuition, metaphysical ideas, or subjective reasoning."
"this strict focus on empirical evidence is actually an unnatural way for humans to think, as we naturally seek explanations that align with our broader worldview."
I don't know how the book connects to your point (which I'm sympathetic to) that science thrives thanks to human messiness, rather than thanks to suppressing it.
The IB diploma program has a “Theory of knowledge” course for grade 11 or 12. I have always thought this course should be offered in all high schools and mandatory. High school intro to epistemology.
It's funny that "the need to quit it with a naive caricature of science as an exercise of pure reason unconnected to human motives and to start teaching the social process of science" is a pretty good outline of Popper's actual #philosophy of #science. 🙂
The unfortunate thing is that the axioms of Popperian philosophy of science, while theoretically falsifiable from their own perspective, have any evidence against them mentally impounded as anomalous by anyone working in that paradigm.
I feel at a basic human level, it is good to remember there is no world of pure reason out there. There is good reasoning and bad reasoning given a particular context and juncture.
People have good/bad reasons for reasoning the way they do (ignorance also beimg a part of the human condition).
At a conference several years ago, I broached this same sentiment amongst a bunch of researchers. They were content to sit upon their high horses of “objectivity” and say they had no place in advocacy. It made me so unbelievably angry. Still stands today.
Fuckwit is right, anyone that doesn't consider themselves progressive shouldn't call themselves scientist. Type of people that would've demonized evolutionary theory
Once can believe science is a social process and believe that it should nevertheless strive to be apolitical. Actually I see what is happening in the USA as a vindication of that. It is precisely because sci is seen as political then a proportion of society has decided to ignore it.
Feedback goes both ways of course but science becoming more political is not going to make the people who disbelieve its discoveries suddenly start believing in them and that is what is needed to have evidence based policies that benefit the mass of people.
And by saying the right’s politics and view of science is skewed by whatever makes them the most money.
Their opposition is purely greed based and attempting to call science political in bad faith to achieve their agenda of profit at all other’s loss
I assume good faith unless there is evidence to contrary. I'm sure there are individuals who act in bad faith over sci. evidence but I don't think most anti-vaxxers/climate change deniers etc are insincere in their scepticism. They are alienated from science for reasons, society needs to determine.
Amen. Too many scientists are like the chef who prepares a great meal then tells the waiting diners, “Help yourself. My job is to prepare the food. Your job is to figure out what to do with it. “
It is such a weird stance, because on lots of matters doing good science means knowing the Right Thing to do. Objectively right, even! E.g. the right way to stave off a pandemic! And when idiots do Wrong things and other people die, YOU SHOULD SHOUT ABOUT THE RIGHT THING!
That’s impossible and outright critiqued by STS and feminist scholars of science many decades ago. Why this convo keeps coming up is in itself telling of the politics of science.
Hey Carl, did you know that setting your thermostat at 80° C in DC is different than setting it at the same temperature in other places? I learn so much from that journal.
America needs more emphasis on the basics of science and parsing scientific material from opinion. Not understanding basic statistic principles really suckers people
Yknow I told someone above me awhile back "you cant be apolitical and scientific while constantly just giving ground to different scientific topics being political"
I'd say the scientific method is, in essence, apolitical, and that's even one of its main traits. But in practice, how you're applying it and on what, is pretty much always political.
Like GamerGate's "keep politics out of gaming", they claim neutrality to push a reactionary agenda. The word "apolitical" is intentionally fuzzy since they can't directly say shit like "science should remain neutral as to whether trans people deserve rights." I wouldn't trust their science, either.
Scientists-i just spent a month reading hundreds of papers of peer reviewed evidence from decades of research to come to an unsure conclusion based on the fact I could be disproven if new evidence comes to light....
Trump- science is dumb.
Trumpers- yayyyyy
Comments
The biggest difference is that we are in the information age where information and disinformation are disseminated almost instantly to millions at a time, so it appears more escalated.
Disasters used to be largely local events.
Support science.
Experience reality, get wise
Scientists are humans too and therefore inherently political animals like the rest of us.
https://sciedandmisinfo.stanford.edu
It's that science as we practice it works *because* it's done by humans with all their inherent messiness.
Michael Strevens has explained this better than I could ever aspire to.
I think too many scientists believe that for science to have authority as a mode of knowing and as a basis for policy, we have to perpetuate a fiction about why scientists do what they do.
That fiction undermines the strongest reasons to trust science.
If we adequately taught the social process of science—how scientists are funded, what motivates them, what is rewarded, why centralized authority is ineffective—folks would realize immediately what an absolute crock of horseshit this is.
Yes.
Exactly.
still a bit unclear.
I'm guessing there are as many motives as there are personalities.
People have good/bad reasons for reasoning the way they do (ignorance also beimg a part of the human condition).
Their opposition is purely greed based and attempting to call science political in bad faith to achieve their agenda of profit at all other’s loss
Life is about to get dangerous for them and many other professionals in America.
That's what magazines do.
And here we are.
HERE WE ARE
Trump- science is dumb.
Trumpers- yayyyyy