If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
CiG
Sand-Boondy Assassin
Good or bad, why are so many people in such denial about it being political?
rms
Active Member
the influence of political bias on "science" (or rationally based thought) should make this obvious?
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,843
- 670
- 113
The Hypatia controversy is what happens when an entire academic community accidentally proceeds down a slippery slope. The acceptance of transgenderism being what I am referring to. Tuvel seems to be objectively pointing out that transitioning from one biological trait to another is equivalent, despite current sensitivities to the issue. She tried as hard as possible to be PC about it, and even passes a peer review, but people want nothing to do with Dolezal's delusions (or any other similar case of transracialism), and thus she becomes ostracized. Ok, race and gender are not entirely equivocal, but as Tuvel has probably pointed out in her paper (I havent read the original text), there are probably too many profound similarities to accept one based on [philosophical inquiry] while uncritically rejecting the other. Considering that I am of the position that transgenderism is a mental health issue, I find this whole situation to be rather laughable. A man thinking he should have been born with a vagina, ok, but a white person thinking they should have been born black? You have gone too far! What an insane problem for what is considered a legitimate field in academia.
As for the science march, hasnt the issue with science funding been resolved already?
As for the science march, hasnt the issue with science funding been resolved already?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Your inability to incorporate the first statement into the following statement shows the level of your intellectual indoctrination (including your assumption/insistence that the nonscientific nature of your major has scientific relevance). Good Day on this.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Einherjar86
Active Member
CiG
Sand-Boondy Assassin
Einherjar86
Active Member
Say it if you want man. I'm just saying what's always been the case--that science is political to some degree. In a culture that fosters publicly-funded scientific pursuits, you're likely going to find a more diverse field of research than you would if science was privately-funded by entities that want to see their interests reaffirmed. Does that mean it's a-political? Definitely not; but it does mean you're going to generate a more vibrant and varied discourse.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Why would privately-funded scientists be more prone to observer bias? Publicly-funded science pays largely through promotion/prestige/fame, privately-funded science pays via market incentives. The former would seem much more prone to reaffirmation, where for the latter, the science itself is just a means to a high-dollar patent.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Privately-funded science doesn't pay in market incentives though. It pays based on whether the results conform to a patron's expectations. Scientists whose results contest the values and/or practices of their patrons would quickly find themselves out of a job; or, and this is perhaps even worse, they would alter their results so as to appease those they work for.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
What patron? If you're an aspiring pharma company developing a new drug to treat some disease, chances are you're being funded through wealthy private investors. Should the company be so fortunate as to have great early clinical results, it will be purchased by a massive Pfizer or Merck. Are you saying that outright fraud, e.g. doctoring data to show a positive result when none such occurred, is a common event? Pretty sure it isn't, and it's not exactly hard to verify most scientific results if the methodology is clear. At the level of the board of directors, it just isn't worth the risk; even if it means declaring bankruptcy on their company, most/all of those guys have connections outside of their business and can find work elsewhere.
If you mean patrons as in the lab tech that fucks up an experiment, and fakes some data to avoid being chewed out/fired, that stuff will almost certainly get caught. The chain of command is too long and there are too many experiments built on each other for someone to not figure it out eventually, assuming the result was significant to the overall project.
If you mean the end consumer, then that's complicated by the fact that we don't really have a free market. Regulations in advertising products can be strict. The factor of cost is usually buried under a complex web of interplay between drug companies, insurance, and government subsidies, meaning consumers don't particularly need to weigh costs and benefits. Consumers are not allowed to consent to purchase new medication on their own; they need the prescription to do so.
And I think moving outside of biotech/drugs (I picked it because it's what I'll probably end up doing once I finish my PhD) it only becomes more clear. No one really cares about the "values" behind designing a better solar panel or space rocket or similar as long as the end product is worth buying. Private-sector research has a strong bias towards application over the theoretical.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,843
- 670
- 113
With publicly funded research you will find more scientists trying to reaffirm their own postulates in order to continue receiving funding. The competition for publicly funded grants in academia is the prime mover in this dilemma. If your research doesnt yield good results, you may not receive finding in the future. Privately funded research is often goal oriented, and tends to be more rigorous in its standards of accuracy (HBB's post above points this out quite well).
CiG
Sand-Boondy Assassin
Relating to the original thing @Einherjar86 brought up, I think it's rather funny that just as the left are reaching peak-can't ever seem to form as one and move forward to a goal and self-devouring politics, Donald Trump comes in and makes it impossible for the right to capitalize on this because now they're also eating each other alive and can't form as one in order to move in post-Obama and dominate.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm talking about science in which the applicability of results is not immediately clear, whether they prove positive or not: e.g. those working at CERN, or continuing NASA missions, or artificial intelligence/consciousness, etc. Private funding for such pursuits will almost certainly have speculative goals in mind, and if the research doesn't pan out then there's no reason to keep funding (if private enterprises are even interested in this kind of research in the first place).
This kind of research doesn't have the clear goal-oriented structure that research for pharmaceutical companies have. There needs to be some kind of publicly-funded system in place to support such research. Even if it leads to some scientists tweaking their results in order to support their hypotheses, if enough scientists are funded then eventually a general consensus will begin to emerge (which we've seen in our contemporary scientific community).
But as someone already mentioned, I think the science budget is safe for now, seeing as the budget they passed is pretty much leftover from Obama's term.
rms
Active Member
didn't say it was unbiased, but assigning more bias to it, by associating the left/liberals/democrats as the "science party" is obviously ridiculous..
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, as I already said, I'm more suspicious of science that has privately-funded interests in mind.
Also, disclaimer: that's not to say that privately-funded science can't be productive or important! I think it can be very important. I just also think it operates within a very narrow window of opportunity. Publicly-funded science, while it may foster political bias and the need for confirmation, generates a more varied discursive community than scientists working in corporate labs.
Also, disclaimer: that's not to say that privately-funded science can't be productive or important! I think it can be very important. I just also think it operates within a very narrow window of opportunity. Publicly-funded science, while it may foster political bias and the need for confirmation, generates a more varied discursive community than scientists working in corporate labs.
CiG
Sand-Boondy Assassin
rms
Active Member
we're not even to the point of speaking generally about publically and privately funded science. The discussion is the rebranding of science as a tool of the political left. Not addressing this is being dishonest.
Edit; quote to show where this started:
Not surprised that Baroque was the only man to like this post
Similar threads
