If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

What's the ratio of public vs. private in medicine research and development?

I actually have no idea.

A lot of work is done by scholars at R1 universities, so I think a fair amount is mostly public.

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.

As far as pure politics go, yes it is a tool of the left. But a lot of the people in the march itself see themselves as legitimate scientists who happen to have political beliefs and maybe some concern for the future of their research.

There were also a lot of hangers-on in the marches, people who probably identify more politically than scientifically. These two things don't need to be mutually exclusive, is what I'm saying.

If the biggest problem here is that science skeptics see the marches and feel further repulsed by its political assimilation, then I'd accuse both side of being as politically virulent--not just the left.

 

[EternalMetal]

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.

It kind of all depends on the field of study. Surely an oil company funded field study of the impact of drilling would be biased as fuck, but something like drug design is going to be much less biased and more results-based.

What's the ratio of public vs. private in medicine research and development?

Im not sure about the ratio, but they work hand in hand. Publicly funded research is usually more focused on unraveling the science, and privately funded research is focused on building on this knowledge to create drugs and other medical products.

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

I dont think that it is a secret that the main point of this march was because of the left's views on climate change. Simply put, this research is important and should not be de-funded. Im sure that motives and ideas for action on this are sitting immediately below the surface. While I myself am skeptical of the current popular consensus in climate science, I do think that these are important issues that are worth spending time and money discussing. This isnt a new issue. What other science does the political left even remotely care about?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

Well yeah, private scientific research usually isn't done without market incentives (unless it's a private non-profit e.g. St. Jude's (which of course still ultimately has market considerations to some extent in the form of consumer interest for services, and tax breaks/PR for corporations and individuals that donate)). That's a different issue from what you seemed to be talking about before though. I don't disagree that theoretical and fundamental research with ambiguous market application can be better suited to public funding, though it's worth noting that such research was largely privately funded until the 1940s-50s or so (see: Bell Labs for one example).

 

[rms]

If the biggest problem here is that science skeptics see the marches and feel further repulsed by its political assimilation, then I'd accuse both side of being as politically virulent--not just the left.

I think you're looking at this in at "too micro" of a level. The problem isn't the persuasion but rather the increase of identity politics. Those who marched for "Science" were likely 90%+ leftists. I can't imagine that number is any smaller.

Then, any political discussion, whether that is on twitter or carried out by influential commentators, is going to frame each issue as the "pro science" and "anti science" party. Neither side has shown they are pro science, they are pro-survival. Or pro-accruing more power.

I dont think that it is a secret that the main point of this march was because of the left's views on climate change

I think it is a secret, the name of the march wasn't "A March for Climate Change"

What other science does the political left even remotely care about?

Stem cells, gay gene(s), and being anti-GMO

 

[CiG]

I think it is a secret, the name of the march wasn't "A March for Climate Change"

It's an extension of what you said about sides being dichotomised as the pro-science side vs the anti-science side.

If they called it the march for climate change it essentially would strip the march of any projected objectivity and apolitical nature. By calling it the march for science it further strengthens the claim that they're the pro-science side.

 

[Einherjar86]

This piece articulates impeccably what I've been saying repeatedly about gender/race and identity:

(fair warning, it's dense word-soup, but I think it's important for capturing the sincerity of the issue)

Both conventional cisgender and more trans-inclusive epistemologies of gender (especially in the West) *demand* that we associate gendered embodiments, expressions, behaviors, words / terms, with a deeply *interior* identity (recalling the argument that Foucault famously makes about sexuality) - our gendered actions or embodiments must *mean* something in terms of the ontology of our inner selves, must correspond with a deeply held personal identity (even if that is genderqueer or fluid or agender, inasmuch as these are ‘identities’). Much of our hard-won struggles against biological essentialism and for gender self-determination often remain imbricated in this potentially oppressive ideology, being in some sense the obverse of the cissexist idea that social sex assignment ‘naturally’ corresponds to a gendered essence (inasmuch as an avowal of gender as a deep personal identity becomes the logic for social recognition). ‘Race’, in contrast, is etymologically linked with ideas of common descent and collective lineage, deriving from one’s position within a collective rather than a deeply held personal identity (indeed, US post-racial ideology asks us to [pretend to] forget that race matters for individual identification or social position). To my mind, this contrast between the personalization+interiorization of gender and the collectivization of race seems to be one of the underlying reasons for the discomfort with transracialism and the race-gender analogy. Regardless of the validity or otherwise of transracialism as a ‘real' phenomenon, it ties us to the oppressive generalization of gender as an inevitable personal essence that all of us must ‘own up to’, in contradistinction to race or ethnicity that are assigned to us or derive from our collective social position.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ani-...ilege-identity-distinction/10155234495464437/

 

[rms]

god, this is annoying to read

Much of our hard-won struggles against biological essentialism

with essentialism being defined as, a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence, this is your position? that biology is a social construct?

I feel like I need to read more of them's (lol) post but this asshole and his ESPN spelling bee runner up's use of the english language is so pretentious

 

[Einherjar86]

with essentialism being defined as, a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence, this is your position? that biology is a social construct?

Sorry, but you are not reading this correctly at all.

Essentialism is the argument that things are the way they are because of some prior essence, some metaphysical substance that produces us in the way we are--thereby making our sexual preferences, our gender, etc. a reflection of some prior spark of being that led to our existence.

Biology doesn't make this argument, that's what the author is saying. Biology is the study of the existence of things, not of some preternatural life-essence that gives rise to entities the way they are. Logically speaking, such a belief couldn't give rise to entities in any other way; that is, their existence would be predetermined by their essence.

Biology isn't the study of predetermined essence or substance. It's the study of the way things are, which could also appear in any given number of other ways. Biology isn't a social construct, but it's not an essence either.

 

[rms]

Essentialism is the argument that things are the way they are because of some prior essence, some metaphysical substance that produces us in the way we are--thereby making our sexual preferences, our gender, etc. a reflection of some prior spark of being that led to our existence.

feel like we're on the same page here, yet how do you grapple the rest of the paragraphs with the field of evolutionary biology? Isn't that practice simply an attempt to understand/demonstrate why things are the way they are, ie 'best for surivival' ?

Thankfully his first paragraph isn't as wordy as the intro

 

[CiG]

Biology's study of the way things are necessarily includes an understanding of the way things were and have always been as well. I think that is often missing from these characterisations of biology.

Anyway, what I find interesting is how so many people seem keen to talk about "trans race" yet isn't there only one person who is supposedly "trans race" so far? Are there any more beyond just Rachel Dolezal?

Why is there a preference to scientifically justify or debunk "trans race" rather than just putting this all down to an obvious huckster's attempt to salvage her career?

 

[Einherjar86]

feel like we're on the same page here, yet how do you grapple the rest of the paragraphs with the field of evolutionary biology? Isn't that practice simply an attempt to understand/demonstrate why things are the way they are, ie 'best for surivival' ?

Biology's study of the way things are necessarily includes an understanding of the way things were and have always been as well. I think that is often missing from these characterisations of biology.

Evolutionary biology doesn't actually explain why things are the way they are; it explains how things go to be the way they are. I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a crucial difference.

Explaining why things are the way they are would be to posit some kind of pre-directed goal, to assume that every organism has been striving to be the way that it is from the beginning. Aside from actually identifying what that beginning would be, this simply isn't the case. Evolution has no pre-directed goals. Organisms evolve and mutate, and certain mutations work while others don't. None of this points to some underlying cause for mutation, as though it's being ushered in the best suitable direction. Mutations are accidents.

Rather, evolution just explains how things got to be the way they are. So once again, new generations introduce new mutations, and some of these mutations might be better-suited to handle changes in the environment. There was nothing predetermined about these mutations, they just happened; and they also just happened to work, thereby passing their genes on to further generations.

 

[rms]

Anyway, what I find interesting is how so many people seem keen to talk about "trans race" yet isn't there only one person who is supposedly "trans race" so far? Are there any more beyond just Rachel Dolezal?

Why is there a preference to scientifically justify or debunk "trans race" rather than just putting this all down to an obvious huckster's attempt to salvage her career?

just for academic sense, logisticians point out that the arguments used for being pro-transgender is the same as transrace, so you can't be for one and not the other

honestly, not sure if anyone is hated more than Dolezal in the public sphere. Maybe Shkreli (drug price dude) for a bit, but I can't think of anyone on a lower totem pole in society -- at least as a caricature

 

[rms]

Mutations are accidents.

Yes, but certain mutations eventually become normalized--and those certain ones do so for a reason. And that reason has to be it's a beneficial mutation towards surviving?

I get your point that non-humans don't have intent, but environments clearly create pressure on organisms and force those organisms into 'channels' or 'paths' throughout their existence, no?


read the rest of his facebook piece, what a waste of time. many people writing lots of words without saying anything. gender academics are tiresome

p.s. wtf is trans-GNC?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, but certain mutations eventually become normalized--and those certain ones do so for a reason. And that reason has to be it's a beneficial mutation towards surviving?

I get your point that non-humans don't have intent, but environments clearly create pressure on organisms and force those organisms into 'channels' or 'paths' throughout their existence, no?

Mutations do become normalized for a reason, but it has nothing to do with the organism itself realizing its evolutionary potential, or that the mutation is essential to its survival. It simply has to do with that organism and its progeny surviving, and others not. Hence, some mutations shift from outliers to the norm, while others die off.

Environments don't put pressure on individual organisms, since individual organisms don't mutate during the course of their lives (generally speaking). It happens as one generation gives rise to another. The feedback between organism and environment has to be thought of on a genealogical level, not on the level of individual organisms.

It may look like environments direct organisms through channels, but environments themselves don't dictate the anatomical consequences that any given mutation will assume. An organism's anatomy cannot be shaped by the pressure of its environment. In other words, environments might encourage mutation, but they don't infiltrate the genetic material and influence what that mutation will be, or how it will manifest anatomically.

 

[rms]

The feedback between organism and environment has to be thought of on a genealogical level, not on the level of individual organisms.

I don't get how you are separating the two. If an environment suddenly runs out of tuna and now all the organisms have to eat chicken, that diet will effect both the organism and their genetics.

environments might encourage mutation, but they don't infiltrate the genetic material and influence what that mutation will be, or how it will manifest anatomically.

How environment do not encourage mutation seems baffling to me let alone the second half of the statement. Just don't get how you can separate the organism from the genealogy of that organism

Hence, some mutations shift from outliers to the norm, while others die off.

We both agree and have mentioned there's no 'agency' within organisms in relation to mutation, but it sounds like you're scared to take the next step in the logical process. Obviously not all mutations are 'more beneficial' in relation to survival, but it seems likely that the vast majority of organisms that carried on certain mutations did so because those mutations were improvements for that organism in that environment.

I've seen this position to fight off "pre-determination" all the time in history, and I don't get how it's being used here by me. It seems like you're arguing with a non-existent viewpoint in this discussion

 

[CiG]

Evolutionary biology doesn't actually explain why things are the way they are; it explains how things go to be the way they are. I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a crucial difference.

No I think I understand the distinction you're making. How describes external influences which bring about the accidental mutation in something, why describes (or more appropriately attempts to ascribe) a conscious or subconscious decision to a mutation, which I would say is inappropriate in a discussion about evolutionary biology.

 

[Mort Divine]

p.s. wtf is trans-GNC?

Gender non-conforming

 

[CiG]

I would say one of the best examples we have for attributing a consciousness or subconsciousness to a major evolutionary change is the advent of birth control, essentially a biological revolution, which fundamentally changed the nature of women into a being that had almost instantly much less in common with women, as a being, pre-birth control.

But that's probably a little pseudo-intellectual and it wasn't exactly intended when birth control was invented.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Mutations do become normalized for a reason, but it has nothing to do with the organism itself realizing its evolutionary potential, or that the mutation is essential to its survival. It simply has to do with that organism and its progeny surviving, and others not. Hence, some mutations shift from outliers to the norm, while others die off.

Environments don't put pressure on individual organisms, since individual organisms don't mutate during the course of their lives (generally speaking). It happens as one generation gives rise to another. The feedback between organism and environment has to be thought of on a genealogical level, not on the level of individual organisms.

It may look like environments direct organisms through channels, but environments themselves don't dictate the anatomical consequences that any given mutation will assume. An organism's anatomy cannot be shaped by the pressure of its environment. In other words, environments might encourage mutation, but they don't infiltrate the genetic material and influence what that mutation will be, or how it will manifest anatomically.

Environments absolutely put pressure on individual organisms. The presence of biological diversity (mutations) may be predetermined at birth, but it is *primarily* environmental pressure that dictates which of those mutations will be favorable and conducive to propagation. You have cause and effect entirely backwards. It's the environment that "causes" a finch to evolve a different beak; without that pressure, you'd just see a genotypic average of all available beak alleles, with no particular preference between potential mates.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't get how you are separating the two. If an environment suddenly runs out of tuna and now all the organisms have to eat chicken, that diet will effect both the organism and their genetics.

Sure, but not in any way that can be predicted, by the organisms or by the environment. In fact, most organisms that eat tuna will likely die off. In a small number there might emerge some kind of genetic mutation with increased chances of survival, but the specifics of that mutation do not inhere in the environmental change. In other words, the sudden disappearance of tuna doesn't provide specs for what the genetic mutation will be.

How environment do not encourage mutation seems baffling to me let alone the second half of the statement. Just don't get how you can separate the organism from the genealogy of that organism

Mutations occur inter-generationally, not within the duration of a single generation (unless radically infiltrative substances are introduced, which isn't common). All I'm saying is that when we think of mutation we can't attribute it to some predisposition within the organism itself; the organism isn't working toward some most suitable form.

We both agree and have mentioned there's no 'agency' within organisms in relation to mutation, but it sounds like you're scared to take the next step in the logical process. Obviously not all mutations are 'more beneficial' in relation to survival, but it seems likely that the vast majority of organisms that carried on certain mutations did so because those mutations were improvements for that organism in that environment.

Actually, just the opposite. Far more organisms have perished on this planet than are currently alive. The vast majority of mutations that have occurred throughout the history of life on this planet were mostly duds.

Environments absolutely put pressure on individual organisms. The presence of biological diversity (mutations) may be predetermined at birth, but it is *primarily* environmental pressure that dictates which of those mutations will be favorable and conducive to propagation. You have cause and effect entirely backwards. It's the environment that "causes" a finch to evolve a different beak; without that pressure, you'd just see a genotypic average of all available beak alleles, with no particular preference between potential mates.

Environments don't "cause" mutations to occur. They provide circumstances in which certain mutations prove beneficial, and those organisms pass their genes on to future generations. The finch evolves the beak it does entirely by accident. The finch perpetuates because its beak is conducive to its particular environment.