'Science Must Clean Up Its Act' (scientificamerican.com) 685
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..
They had me at "robustly funded" (Score:3, Insightful)
A dog-whistle for "funded by taxes"...
Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.
Re:They had me at "robustly funded" (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The whole SJW agenda is that people want to get "funded" without having to get a real job.
Re:They had me at "robustly funded" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable, some profitable things aren't socially valuable. Most individuals would never decide, or could never afford, to take on a socially valuable project that loses money, which is why we have governments to do them.
Oh really, like what (Score:3, Insightful)
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable
Name one. All things are potentially profitable. There is a thriving private space industry now when it was claimed only governments could really explore space...
Also another side question, what does "socially valuable" have to do with science anyway? I think there is the root of your problem, and the problem of the current scientific community. Science is about building tools and fostering an understanding of an issue, without judgment or preconception. I
Re:Oh really, like what (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a thriving private space industry now when it was claimed only governments could really explore space...
The initial work on space was very, very expensive and had very low returns. It may well have been done by commercial entities eventually and over a much longer period of time, but then we wouldn't be enjoying all the benefits of it today. No satellites, for example.
It's the same with a lot of medical research. The basic, risky stuff gets done by publicly funded institutions like universities, and then commercialized when there is a clear way to profit from it. Again, you could argue that if we simply waited the market would do that research, but then we would still be dying of stuff that can be easily cured today.
Re: (Score:3)
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable
Name one.
New antibiotics. As described on wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Since 2009, only 2 new antibiotics were approved in the United States. The number of new antibiotics approved for marketing per year declines continuously.
The reason is simple: Existing antibiotics have been used to such a degree that there are more and more bacteria that can resist exisiting antibiotica. Thus, new antibiotica must be held in reserve to fight the bacteria that shrugs off current antibiotics, implying that the new antibiotica is not going to be used much. The cost of researching and clearing the new antibiotica does not get any cheaper, so we have a situation where it is expensive to research and the
Re: (Score:3)
For-profit firefighting also exists. There have been cases of them refusing to assist a non-subscriber; that's one way to deal with free riders.
Letting their families burn to death? You mindless, vicious fuck.
Private police forces exist in many contexts
Yeah, they are called death squads.
Rural condo associations have their own sewer systems.
And when those private sewer systems flow shit into someone else's drinking water, then what?
Of all the mindless clowns on this thread, you take the cake. As you always do.
Counterpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it in a tobacco company's interest to pay for all of the facts of the research that merely correlates cancer with smoking
No - but it is in an *insurance companies* interest to know that. There is always some party who gains benefit from knowing the truth.
What's wrong with cases favouring *robustly funded* science?
As always, the certainly of graft, corruption, and the pushing to the side of REAL science in the rush to prove some assertion is true regardless of facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Health insurance companies do make their money by charging premiums for policies that cover treatment. If there suddenly were no disease and no injuries, health insurance companies (and branches of companies) would go out of business, even if this were established by some magical means rather than simply wiping out humanity.
The more health care costs, the more money goes through health insurance companies, and the more money that goes through them the more they can make. Health insurance companies inde
This is not a news article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not a news article (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. The scientific community does have issues of its own to address (and there are many).
However, this article reads along the lines of "I consider myself part of a community, and my community should think just like I do, and support the causes I want them to."
The author seems to be trying to 'shame' those who feel that "That has nothing to do with me, I feel no need to support it."
She does have a point though (Score:5, Interesting)
Her willingness to put her own personal beliefs before scientific values shows a complete lack of objectivity, This, together with her openly racist and sexist rant, does suggest that she might actually have a point though. This sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable for someone calling themselves a scientist and so if science is going to clean up its act giving her an education in basic scientific principles would be a good place to start.
How Virtuous (Score:5, Funny)
There's more signalling going on in this one summary than every stoplight in Manhattan.
Re:How Virtuous (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I was about to shout "Bingo!" There's a difference between political activism and studying the world; there's also a difference between voluntary support, and compelled groupthink.
Scientists aren't known for going along with compelled groupthink, especially as disproving groupthink can make their career.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:How Virtuous (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, this felt like a lecture to scientists and those who associate with them. The lesson appeared to be "searching for answers is not enough. You must find the answers that support this specific agenda, otherwise your science is deficient." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The responsibility is on the individual that wants to change these things to change them through their presence, their effort, and ultimately their exemplary contribution. Changing people's minds is that easy.
Unfortunately, people who are consumed with gender politics, panning for "microaggressions," and warrioring for socialish justiceness will never have the time to be a significant contributions to actual science that make a difference where it really matters. Instead they seek to make up artificial reasons why those who actually do scientific work and those that fund that work should be ashamed of themselves and their science. They want to change science into a slave to their political agenda. Circumventing the method that makes it science and enforcing a strict set of rules that ensure the output of any science meets their predetermined acceptability matrix.
In other words, these people think that science, just like language and behavior, should be beholden to their politics and nothing else. I can't think of anything more destructive to real science than than focusing on a political agenda first and then organizing science around it afterward.
'Science Must Clean Up Its Act' (Score:5, Funny)
An interesting hypothesis. Has it been put to the test?
Re: (Score:2)
Riiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is facing a raft of politically-motivated studies, rigged or suppressed medical trials, false or irreproducible results are rampant. But the big problem is "lack of diversity"??
I would think if you demanded rigor and accountability for the actual science part of the job, you wouldn't have to worry too much about who was doing the work.
Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is facing a raft of politically-motivated studies, rigged or suppressed medical trials, false or irreproducible results are rampant. But the big problem is "lack of diversity"??
I would think if you demanded rigor and accountability for the actual science part of the job, you wouldn't have to worry too much about who was doing the work.
Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.
If this was any other endeavor, people would be talking about a boycott... Apparently science is deemed important enough not to boycott of organizations that didn't tow the PC line. Maybe there is hope for rationality after all (or did I speak too soon)...
Re:Riiight... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and that's why "science" as a thing is rapidly losing credibility.
The SJW's have aggressively politicized everything: it's no longer about qualifications, it's about identity politics....and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, don't let your guard down.
Only a couple of short decades ago, you'd have never even heard in public, much less on any relative scale...the protests and bitching by the SJW types....but it is growing.
I have been shocked in seeing some of the rhetoric coming from the extreme left, and how much of it is sticking and being promoted in m
Re: (Score:3)
Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.
And Starbucks. Leave me alone to drink my coffee in peace.
Re:Riiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is diversity important?
This concept is drilled into us day in, day out. It's accepted as a universal truth with absolutely no vetting, which has always made me suspicious of the claim. Why is diversity important in science? By it's very nature, WHO is doing the science should be irrelevant. A test result won't change depending on my gender or melanin levels, or at least it won't if the science is done right.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily *who* does the science, is important, but science is based on the decisions of those doing it. IE: *What* gets studied can depend on the scientists. I would not expect a group of white, hetero males to do much research on the topic of Sickle Cell Anemia, because it largely does not affect them.
I guess that you don't know that sickle cell anemia is not a disease based on race or ethnic background. It's occurrence is based on exposure rates to malaria, in a community as a whole, no matter what race a person is.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
I'm all for this! (Score:4, Funny)
I've long held that the scientific community needs to take better care of its equipment. Running multiple experiments with unclean equipment will just lead to shoddy science! Controversial, I know, but there you have it!
I agree with the article that women would be great for these positions and would, in fact, clean up science's act. More power to'em!
Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
In the three months leading up to the March for Science and in the days since, many in the scientific community engaged in heated debates about how political science and the march should be, especially around social justice issues. 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 & 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.”
(Facepalm) I can't think of the words to describe how disgusting this is that some group of people would mix science and politics. The only point at which science might mix with politics is if politics is in opposition to science for political reasons. But this is different. This is pulling political issues into the scientific realm and that's just absolutely absurd and discredits science. NO NO NO. LGBT rights have NOTHING to do with science. Mass shootings have nothing to do with science. There is a reason why scientists are usually not politicians and vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to reach out to her, you can contact her here: metcalf@awis.org
Did this sound contradictory to anyone else? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've read the article twice, but I still think I'm reading it wrong. Does he say that science should be more objective and apolitical, then complain that it is object and apolitical?
Even the summary turned my stomach (Score:5, Insightful)
Whiny social justice warrior demands science be primarily a political tool for her pet causes, complains more when told science is supposed to be apolitical about facts and reproducible experiments - and can't resist implying that those things are bad because she was told so by scary 'old white men'.
Maybe Heather Metcalf should shut the hell up and spend some time thinking about why the 'old white men' are right and she's a complete idiot. Scientific American does itself a disservice by letting her post this crap under their banner, blog page or not.
Any issue you may see with the sex ratio of scientists or treatment scientists tend to receive based on sex or gender, whether they're famous or toiling in obscurity, or sex or gender issues in the community at large... has nothing to do with whether or not science should a political arena. It should not. Science seeks facts and understanding, what we do with that is the arena of politics.
Re:Even the summary turned my stomach - Ug (Score:2)
Re:Even the summary turned my stomach (Score:5, Insightful)
Her target is not you, me, or even scientists that do sciency stuff.
Her target is those that fund science. Just like politically correct speech is designed to circumvent free thought by proscribing what can be said, this is an attempt to limit and control what science is done, and why it is done, by shaping the viewpoints of those that fund it.
Welcome to the new Gestapo. They will cleanse you of all doubleplusungood thoughts and actions.
Re: (Score:3)
>Welcome to the new Gestapo.
I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough I can tell you this is not the first time since WWII that we've had wannabe 'thought police' gain political influence. It comes and goes to varying degrees on what seem to be decade-long cycles.
The important thing that we never seem to learn as a society is that the more you tolerate these fools early on, the harder it is to stop them later on when they've gained positions of power - and the greater the return swing on the pend
What the ***** (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the scientific community needs to be more PC
And she doesn't go into much detail about how exactly it's supposed to go about doing that, but "science" has been open to all for the entirety of its existence, and hasn't produced the outcome she liked. I have a sneaking suspicion that her fix will be one set of standards to accept scientific evidence from despicable white men and another standard for everybody else.
Re: (Score:3)
And lots of generations think they have to fight to the death and are wrong. This is going to blow over. Science will remain.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion... (Score:5, Insightful)
...have nothing to do with science. They have everything to do with the politicization of science, which turns science into something else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is already too PC (Score:2)
Science should be about reproduceable results. Not the agenda of the "scientists".
Re: (Score:2)
Equal opportunity != based on parity (Score:2)
If you try to give everyone equal chances, independent of their race, gender, sexual preference, planet of origin, you name it, you'll have no bigger supporter than me.
If you want to enforce quotas for equal number of $identification_attribute, independent of their ability to perform whatever has to be done, you'll have no bigger enemy.
Science is not a publicity contest. What it comes down to is whether someone can do it or can't do it. Hey, thinking about it, that's how it is in all fields. And I cannot pu
Wisdom (Score:2)
This messaging was removed and replaced after much pushback, largely from white men, about the need to remain apolitical and objective....
So it's mainly white men who want science to remain scientific, while rejecting the push to make science political; by implication, it's mainly non-white, non-men that want to politicize science.
It is the white men that are showing wisdom that appears to be severely lacking in the other groups. It is not the place of science to push for any social policy. It is the place of science to predict and/or show the results of various social policies (to the extent that science is even capable of doing so). It i
Do not policitize science. (Score:2)
mass shootings are scientific issues.
No. No. No. NO. NO NO!!!! Studies can tell you the chances of being killed by a gun or how common it is in different parts of the world or what changes with mental health or just generally give you a picture of what particular laws have in effect. That does not tell you anything else!
It doesn't tell you what to do if people view those dangers worth it. It doesn't tell you if owning a gun should be a right or not. It doesn't tell you what it means to have a right of self defense. It doesn't tell you what hap
And she'll turn on science when it suits her (Score:4, Interesting)
Take Gender Dysphoria as an example. It is roughly just a mental state where one feels that one's secondary sexual characteristics don't conform to one's feelings about which gender you are. It is essentially a mental illness. That's all it really is. Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion? Unlikely...
This is politics, plain and simple. Once you understand that, everything is easier to understand. There is no political push for real, objective science because the cold truths about the universe would "trigger" every political faction in modern politics at some point, everywhere from Communists, to anarchists and in between.
non sequitur (Score:3)
Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion?
Just an opinion? What? I don't know what you've been reading, but why don't you give this [nyu.edu] a skim and then maybe you can speak a little more sensibly on the topic.
This is bait. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: This is bait. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Scientists, for at least half a century, were really big on social darwinism. That meant the scientific community would just assume black people were dumber, or Poles were naturally servile or whatever based on speculation. If there were any doubts, you could always cite some social scientist who did a study to 'prove' it. WW2 ended all that, but you can still see remnants with books like "The Bell Curve" or James Watson's fairly recent racist comments.
Science is hard, doing good science is harder (we can see this because of numerous mistakes in scientific papers), and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all. Because of this, there is a lot of space where we don't clearly know the answer, but unscrupulous people can take advantage of this and make it look like the science supports their agenda. It's hard to say, "We don't know" and it's hard to hear it.
Re: (Score:3)
Science as a tool is just a tool, it doesn't take political sides. In that sense, of course you are right.
Science as an institution, on the other hand, is a bunch of people, and absolutely can take political sides, and does often enough that it's depressing. The author of the OP is referring to science as an institution. I guess for a lot of
Science does need to clean up its act (Score:5, Interesting)
The replication crisis is present in every field. Publish or perish creates fucked up incentives that guarantee shit science.
Whatever this bint is whining about is not a real problem, at least not at the importance and scale that she claims it is. If she wanted people to take systemic bias seriously, she should clean her own house first. The social sciences are little more than rationalization factories for fringe political ideologies. If you didn't talk like an activist zealot, maybe you would have some credibility, and people wouldn't balk at being associated with you.
Of course, for these activists, that is a feature, not a bug. They claim to speak for all women and minorities, people want nothing to do with them, they then use that as evidence that people want nothing to do with all women and minorities. It's a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing delusion.
HUMAN issues (Score:2)
..diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, including systemic bias, harassment, and discrimination..
These are not 'science community' issues; they are HUMAN RACE issues. This crap goes on all over the world, to varying degrees, in all areas of our so-called 'civilization', and they won't be solved through legislation (laws and regulations just drive attitudes underground) or much through discussion (ironically, it all gets paid 'lip service' and nothing really gets done). These issues will either be solved by humans evolving away from it all -- or it won't. Meanwhile it's all a continual struggle that ap
scientist? (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists have scientific results and publish them; if you check Metcalf's scientific publication record, it's pretty much non-existent.
Science should "clean up its act" by making it clear that people like that are not scientists, don't speak for scientists, and aren't welcome in the scientific community.
Sure thing, psychos (Score:4, Informative)
Because departments run by LGBTQ and similarly "disadvantaged" people produce such high levels of scholarship:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading... [skeptic.com]
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/... [dailywire.com]
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... [telegraph.co.uk]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Because feminists have sooo much to offer science, so much keen insight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
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?... [youtube.com]
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/... [smithsonianmag.com]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L... [rationalwiki.org]
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.
How to improve science: avoid Politics, Economics, (Score:3)
Example: It's impossible to even have a rational discussion about global warming anymore.
The reality is rather different (Score:4, Interesting)
Dr Piper Harron, writing [ams.org] on the AMS "Inclusion/Exclusion" blog, informs us:
"If you are a white cis man you almost certainly should resign from your position of power."
A reply [ams.org] from an anonymous University mathematician serves equally well as a reply to Dr Heather Metcalf.
"We are all painfully aware of the inequalities in faculty composition and trying hard to fix it. *Every* math department I know of is trying really hard to hire every qualified minority and female applicant out there (and by qualified I mean: a *very* generous ballpark within the hiring range of each department). The real problem is that there are not enough such candidates, and most departments end up making offers to the same few that are available in the market each year. By the way, our departments are aware of the problem, and so are our Deans and higher administration. In my experience, they are all very supportive of us hiring under-represented minorities, even offering additional positions when such opportunities occur, *as long as we conform with the laws*, and as long as the hire is within the 'generous ballpark'."
In other words, departments are willing to lower the standards for minority and female candidates, by a "*very* generous ballpark", with the consent of the University administration; but they are still unable to find sufficient candidates.
It is no wonder that there is "pushback" from white men; or that women and minorities are treated with suspicion as having benefitted from "affirmative action".
Science cleaning up its act... (Score:3)
And here I thought this would be an article about the sorry state of science today, ignorance of basic statistical principles, pretending science can answer questions it can't, pretending results prove things they don't, inability to replicate results and structural lack of attempts to replicate results (doesn't get you published), etc.
Instead, more SJW meta-issues. Cleaning up its act apparently has nothing to do with its actual act.
Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumb, dumb, dumb...
Re:Bingo! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bingo! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Bingo! (Score:4, Insightful)
The SJW establishment has been busy constructing a scientific facade around their "social sciences" for decades. They have found that if you merely put the word, "Theory" behind some bogus SJW cause, it automatically engenders some respect among the masses; White Privilege Theory, White Fragility Theory, Black Liberation Theory, etc. It is nothing less than and corruption of the Scientific Principal and the hijacking of Science in general.
Re: (Score:3)
And social sciences most if not all the time fail to deliver useful theories even when they are not burden by an agenda. Though now I wonder have they ever not been burdened by an agenda.
Re:Bingo! (Score:4, Insightful)
SCIENCE doesn't care. It is a process, not an agenda.
You are talking about science, as a process. The article is talking about the scientific community. The phrase "scientific community" shows up 11 times in the article starting in the second paragraph. And the scientific community is no better or worse than any other professional community. It can definitely be biased, it can definitely have an agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
It's agenda should be to be above all of this political nonsense. The facts should be the only thing that matters. They should not focus on any sort of ideology to distort their work. They should not seek to "prove" or "disprove" anything or allow any sacred cows to get in their way.
People (intentionally) confuse science versus technology in order to muddle and obscure issues that have nothing to do with science. There needs to be LESS of that kind of nonsense rather than more.
Re:Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is a Process. Scientists are people. They are a mix of biological and cultural aspects to people preconceptions. A large man with a deep booming voice will get more attention than a small woman with a high quite voice.
We need to be conscious of these aspects that affect us on the emotional level, so we can compensate for them, so we can actually follow the process of science. Not just get stuck in our own prejudice.
When you say to yourself I am above this, that normally means you stop paying attention and you let your instincts take over.
Re: (Score:3)
"When you say to yourself I am above this..."
Anyone who groks where neuroscience is heading should know that this is exactly the frame of mind about which we need to be constantly on guard. Humans are inherently biased and prone to many cognitive limitations. It's remarkable that we ever managed to arrive at the current scientific method at all.
I consider the scientific method to be the greatest intellectual achievement of humanity.
Re:Or just fuck off? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem you see is that women have had equality of opportunity for decades, and have yet to reach parity by the metrics feminism chooses to measure (basically fraction of cushier highly paid positions held by women.) Any suggestion that this is due to the choices women make and / or natural aptitude is about 15 types is *ism and makes you literally Hitler. Thus the solution wasn't to give women the same opportunities, but to demand equality of outcome (or "equity") because god forbid being an overweight women with one leg should preclude you from winning an Olympic gold in the Men's 100 meters
Re: (Score:3)
The reason is simply that the high paying jobs are rigged in such a way that only men want to do them. So we have to create new C-Level positions that favor women!
Think I'm kidding? Think nobody would demand that?
Just wait 'til the first "gender studies" majors graduate and notice that the best they could hope for with a degree in gender studies is a job that includes the phrase "you want fries with that".
Re:Or just fuck off? (Score:5, Insightful)
Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
This is a key that is so often overlooked.
The article is right about several things. There are abuses, there is discrimination, and there is harassment. Those absolutely should be identified and eliminated.
However, we are talking about humans who have actual preferences. Even if opportunities are equal, people have preferences. When offered a formal dinner with plate choices of Steak, Fish, and Veggie entrees, the general popularity for steak isn't because of a "bias in the system".
Nobody seems to care that 99.6% of drywall installers are male, there aren't documentaries about how the drywall installation business is biased against women, or research how women have no chance to succeed in their drywall career. Same thing about 99.9% of bricklayers and stonemasons are male. There is a little discussion about how 99.5% of firefighters are male, there are a few more women in the ranks, but generally people accept that these are going to be male-dominated fields.
Similarly, there isn't much anger about how 91.1% of registered nurses are female, no outcry about how men don't want to be nurses. In fact it is the opposite, I know a few men who are nurses at a nearby hospital, and they talk about discrimination and bias the opposite way, against the males. Where is the outcry that 94.1% of childcare workers are women? Instead the outcry is about how men getting into child care must be quietly pedophiles and are potential rapists. Just like above, people accept that these are currently female-dominated fields. (150 years ago nursing was male dominated, but it shifted during the big wars a century ago. Shifts happen.)
Even though it is gender biased, computer programmers have been gradually drifting away from male dominated fields, from about 91% in 2007 down to about 82% today based on US DoL statistics. Some schools even report equalization of women to men graduating in CS and engineering, and a small number have seen it cross over completely with more women graduating than men.
The article includes discussion of LGBQ groups. The groups make up about 3.5% of Americans so it shouldn't be any surprise that they make up a tiny minority of scientists. The group makes up a tiny percent of the general population, so it would be quite surprising indeed if they were clustered into a specific career field.
So yes, I agree in general with the article that abuses, discrimination, and harassment need to be addressed. But like the grandparent post mentions, equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome. Some careers are more attractive to different genders, hence the male bricklayers and female childcare workers. Many science fields seem to be more attractive to certain groups and not to others, that is not inherently a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. In general, I am sympathetic to the goals (although not always the rhetoric) of "social justice warriors"-- social justice is, in fact, something we should strive for, and I'm in favor of that part of the pledge of allegiance saying "with liberty and justice for all" as a goal that we should aim for, even if somethings we fall short of the mark.
But this article is just wacky. “many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & 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."
No, actually most of these just aren't "scientific issues". Scientists, of course, can and even should have opinions on these subjects, but, really, these aren't scientific issues-- these are social issues.
If these issues were left out of the march for science, there's a good reason: they didn't belong there. They are issues needing a consensus by society as a whole.
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, but we are now living in a post-rational world. The enlightenment is over, and it's fruit rotten and discarded.
We are living in a post truth world, where opinions and offended feelings dictate our social policy rather than objective, dispassionate analysis.
TLDR: As a pseudosexual bestial-curious trans-species potato, I'm offended at your attempt to marginalise me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We are living in a post truth world, where opinions and offended feelings dictate our social policy rather than objective, dispassionate analysis."
Fortunately, societies that cling to truth always win out over post-truth societies.
Re: (Score:3)
"We are living in a post truth world, where opinions and offended feelings dictate our social policy rather than objective, dispassionate analysis."
Fortunately, societies that cling to truth always win out over post-truth societies.
Eventually. In the long run, that's true. But in the long run, you're dead, so it's not much comfort.
Re: (Score:3)
"Can you give an example of a contemporary society that clings to truth?"
A society's commitment to "truth" can of course be in many different areas, but because this is a science thread, I'm talking about respect for science and what it can be applied to. Because the scientific method, with its criteria of reproducibility and peer review is a mechanism that always eventually finds truth even in cases where the people who use it are herd-followers (the epicycle hypothesis of celestial mechanics), faddish (p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is a very good example of the Left co-opting "science" for its own agenda.
It won't be long before someone will argue that their SJW cause is supported by "science".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point. The 'left' is meaningless in regards to science, just as much as the 'right'.
You're the one inserting those terms in there. You're the one with the agenda.
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Backwards. (Score:3)
This is a big reason climate change science has so much pushback. Instead of being just science, it has aligned itself with a particular political leaning.
Yes, I agree with bondsbw-- you have this backwards. Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science.
And, more notably, a particular political leaning aligned itself against climate science.
The overall conclusions of climate science have been known since way before the issue got politicized. The science hasn't changed-- it's gotten more detailed, but it hasn't changed. (That's the way sci
Re: (Score:3)
"Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science."
Why didn't scientists disassociate with this particular political leaning then? Couldn't the scientists imagine where things would wind up?
How do you propose to do that? Have the AAAS issue a statement "You are agreeing with us, so to show that we're not biased, we'll disagree with you, except for the part that we don't agree with them, either, but, oh, we do agree with you where you agree with us"? That is not a sound-bite that the media is going to headline.
Tell you what. Why doesn't the right show how it's done, by "disassociating" themselves with the creation science people. When they've done that, I'll watch how they do it, and that can
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Funny)
LGBTQIA rights
Also, how many more letters are we going to tack on to this acronym?
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm old-school, and only know the first 4 of those, which are of course: Liquor, guns, bacon, and tits.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now this woman is completely stupid to try to make this statement. Women are accepted to universities more than men. Women are generally graded higher than men. Women have a 2:1 advantage in technical fields than men. Perfectly good male candidates are punished now just because of their gender and skin color. There's sexism and prejudice right now, but it's not aimed at women.
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Insightful)
It leads to a system where position is not determined by merit, but by how protected your class of minority is.
It does this intentionally and with forethought. There is no such thing as debate, discussion, or even room for disagreement anymore on the left. Objection to a given solution is denounced as evidence for being in favor of the problem instead of offering reasonable alternatives. The mantra from the left is their way is the only way. All others are shills and fools. And if you disagree with that position you're instantly classified as part of the problem, denounced, shouted down, protested, intimidated into silence, or merely banished.
The scientific method is the one thing that regularly disproves their "one way" assertions. No wonder they want science co-opted by the social justice movement.
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I could vote you up 1000 times.
You can't negotiate with the left. Writing 50 page essays is not going to change most people's perspective, particularly when they have an emotional attachment, or identity attachment to a particular ideology. These aren't people with open minds who will consider dialectic.
I personally advocate using harsh rhetoric and shame to get your point accross. As things break down further expect people on the right to take up the tactics of the left instead of loosing like gentlemen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh. no. Justice is the application of fairness in the law. The law can be unjust and unfair but the singular idea of justice is to be "fair". Victim-less crimes are antithetical to your idea of justice. Yet, it is Just that the law be applied to those crimes.
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
most of these just aren't "scientific issues"
If there is a cause and an effect, it's science.
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Damned little. It's another contribution of "Fake News" masquerading as professional expression. The issues are endemic to the society, but science has no special place in trying to focus on these issues, specifically. When medicine creates a "cure" that works for 90% of the population, it's not generally true that the 10% are people of color, or of a particular gender. The reduction of fossil fuel by-products is neither gender, income-specific, or native heritage related...the lack of reduction harms everyone equally.
I stood up for Science during the recent march. I did not stand up for bogus opinions masquerading as "facts." Show me the data supporting these conclusions, and show me how they differ from the population-at-large, and you might create some cred.
I am a female, with 55 years' experience in computer technology, and--yes--I've had to work harder than male co-workers in some cases to achieve the same level of recognition and compensation. But, I built a successful, remunerative, happy career without griping about the hurdles I've had to master. It's called being an adult, instead of being a whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in India, China, some countries the name of which ends in -stan...
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is "social science" real science? Let's just trot this out again. [xkcd.com]
Humor aside, the lack of ability to reproduce experiments doesn't necessarily make a field of study more or less scientific. After all, you could include astronomy and climate science among those, at least to some degree. But I think you can definitely argue about some fields having more scientific rigor than others, to be sure.
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you think that people have a problem with "global warming"? The same can be said of astronomy too. It's just that there are no highly disruptive public policy agendas being driven by it.
I fully realize that everything we think we know about exo-planets may be complete bullshit. There's no way of really knowing until we actually go out there. Nobody that thinks they are "scientists" or "support science" should have any delusions about anything.
The first thing you need to be willing to embrace is the fact that we might be wrong about everything. It's not religion.
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Interesting)
I fully realize that everything we think we know about exo-planets may be complete bullshit. There's no way of really knowing until we actually go out there.
Nonsense. Empiricism and experimentalism are thoroughly dead and debunked philosophies of science. Popper explained this quite clearly decades ago.
The way science works is though theories which attempt to provide explanations for observed data. Theories are tested by comparing them to what we've already observed, and by making predictions which we can test. It is in no way necessary that the testing process be experimental, only that the theory be falsifiable (actually, there are a few more requirements of a scientific theory, but I won't get into them).
For example, relativity makes many predictions that we cannot test experimentally, but only observationally. Indeed, the first really big confirmation of Einstein's hypothesis was based on the fact that relativity predicted that the gravitational lensing effect, light being bent by passing near a large gravity well such as a star, was roughly twice as strong as that predicted by Newtonian mechanics. There was absolutely no way for anyone to test this difference in a laboratory, you need a huge gravity well to produce observable effects. Luckily, we have a huge gravity well nearby (our sun) and during a total eclipse it was possible with early 20th-century technology to measure the deflection of light of distant stars that passed near the sun.
No one "actually went out there" to conduct that test of the theory. We just evaluated data that was falling on the Earth in the form of starlight, without our doing anything to create or control it. There's a great deal of science, both on the hard sciences like fundamental physics, and the squishier social science, that can be done only observationally, and that's just fine. Scientists working in those areas have to think a bit harder in order to rigorously test their theories than those who can craft exquisitely controlled experiments.
The first thing you need to be willing to embrace is the fact that we might be wrong about everything. It's not religion.
This is the core truth that makes science work. Science has nothing to do with experimentation, except that experimentation is a useful tool in the areas where it works. The fact that social sciences, climatology and astronomy often can't use experimental methods means nothing about whether they are real sciences.
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Falsifiability (Score:3, Insightful)
The inability to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is what separates astrology, social "science" and "climate science" from astronomy, biology and meteorology.
Whenever we want to start the science game we need:
1) a list of observations, if observed, would prove our hypothesis false;
2) an argument that the lack of those observations excludes all other explanations other than our own (including the null).
Ignoring this cornerstone of the scientific method leads to scienti
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: What does this have to do with science? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine, the current left has no interest at all in "for everyone".
Re:'Association for Women in Science' (Score:5, Insightful)