We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
blogs.scientificamerican.com
blogs.scientificamerican.com
The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be politicized the right way. Diversity initiatives. Massive spending programs without clearly-defined revenue streams. Protecting scientists from "political interference," a term which is impossible to define without eliminating the ability to filter junk science. Everyone needs to sign off on this or the bad things will happen.
I'm sure the author's intentions were good, but restoring public confidence in science means that scientists themselves need to take a good look in the mirror.
The point is to raise the role of epistemology in decision making where it is possible. That's all.
Your post advocates for false equivalence, in a somewhat indirect manner. We get to "all science is politicized". And then the muddling of the waters is complete.
There is only so much labor we have as society. We need to make choices as to what we do. If everybody was willing we could dedicate society to just math. People can sleep under their desk at work, eat the mass produced cafeteria food, never watch sports, just work eat sleep. A lot of mathematicians could be funded with the leftover money (remember they are living the same life so their cost of living is tiny - more than half our population could produce more theorems).
The above is obviously Reductio ad Absurdum. However it brings out the point: we as a society have already decided math isn't the most valuable thing. We are already drawing limits, the only question is where.
Right now I'm doing all sorts of work studying risk in financial networks, studying public health, all using math that was considered "pure" just 20 years ago. Actually, at the moment I'm looking up papers on the tropical geometry of deep learning.
Certainly I realize society has decided math is not the most valuable thing, which is why I'll be seeking to do "machine learning" instead in the next year or so, rather than education & research (useless for anything in the real world!). I'm sure I'll add more to humanity when I'm optimizing for ad clicks :)
Something might be useless now, but further mathematics based on it might be worth billions.
- Fast Fourier transform (Gauss discovered and didn't publish it b/c he thought it wasn't very useful. Others rediscovered it later.) - Number theory was considered useless for a long time, now it's used for cryptography
No, just the science that's fashionable to politicize. You can't pretend that this article isn't at least more biased than the people they're supposedly warning us about.
No thank you. I don't need the left telling me that there are 30 genders nor the right telling me that climate change doesn't exist. There is no "right" politicization.
Science doesn't have "revenue streams". Basic research doesn't have "revenue streams".
Anything otherwise, and we lose credibility and a good chunk of audience for political reasons.
Don't weaponize Science! Keep it pure, keep it true.
Good intentions would have included self-reflection, non-partisan discussion of alternative views, and so on.
A simple review of the funding sources of The Union of Concerned scientists letters, this piece is based on, explains the motives (eg 20mln for linking man-made climate affects and hurricanes).
Don't you believe. You won't convince people your politics are rational - you'll convince people science is arbitrary.
Climate Science denialist PR campaigns by Koch Industries are politicization, and it feels filthy wrong that we're overwhelmingly pointing fingers at the scientists and grassroots actors responding to these campaigns instead of the groups publishing and hosting the lies.
Fortunately science is about facts, not feelings.
Saying the march is part of the problem does not mean that the lobbyists are not also part of the problem. It also does not mean the march is a _root cause_ of the problem.
It just acknowledges that the march is a part of the politicization of science, which it is.
In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a Chinese hoax."
This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just "deal with it?"
And scientific knowledge has political implications because it tells us about the world around us, and politics is the process by which we decide how our laws will adapt to and affect that world.
None of that is inherently negative!
However, when political expedience and facts conflict, we should adapt the politics to the facts, and not the other way around.
That's what the "march for science" was about.
*ps sorry for any English mistake, as it's not my first language.
I note a diversity of politics isn’t included.
The agenda here is very clearly left wing politics.
I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists to do that did it for the same reason I dislike many (but certainly not all) blockchain initiatives: it has been bolted on a something where it didn't belong just to "profit" (or profit in the case of blockchains) from something that is hyped by the media.
Climate change is serious, but it detracts from important work when people are abusing those words to get funding for other unrelated research.
Source: I'm an engineer, I fully expect scientists to outperform me in this ;-)
"I guess a certain percentage of those who asked scientists"
Is guessing what engineers do now? I hope I never use anything you worked on.
> Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D. is a marine biologist and founder of Ocean Collectiv, a consulting firm for conservation solutions grounded in social justice.
Literally a think tank trying to advance scientific policies based on politics.
Take conservation. There might be several ways to approach a given conservation problem, all of which are scientifically sound. It is then a political question which to use. Her answer to that question would presumably be one that advances social justice...but unless she would also falsely claim that others are not scientifically valid, or would also try to stop research into the other methods, her position and actions are not a political attack on science.
The solution to the problem this story is about is robust, fearless discussion in pursuit of truth.
But what I see here are many thoughtful, reasoned comments being shamed and made hard-to-read by people who aren't able or willing to rebut them. It is cowardly and anti-intellectual.
It's effectively the downvoters saying, "I disagree with what you said, therefore I will make it harder for other people to hear you." It's antithetical to the stated purpose of this site: intellectual curiosity.
Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?
I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way.
But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo chamber (at least, for certain topics).
Is there something new I'm not understanding?
Perhaps the problem is that scientists themselves are increasingly having to fight their own political battles because their elected politicians can not or will not.
If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science.
We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views.
Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of children in America vs. China is different, people have different dreams and experiences, etc. I am constantly baffled by people like yourself who don't understand that cultural diversity IS diversity of ideas. Whether that culture comes from your location, race, upbringing, wealth, religion, or something else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.
In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right.
However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scientists might be important because the members of the general public and the politicians that represent them are probably more likely to listen to scientists who are like them.
The first is harmful and wrong for a straightforward reason; the range of outcomes that emerge from defeatism are universally bad. The range of outcomes that arise from a worldview that everything can be fixed stem from the bad to the okay to the somewhat good. The range of results that are possible through action outweigh those of inaction. So what's the point in giving up?
The second bit is the science is being used in such and such ways bit. This reminds me of the debates I've had with people who have a hardline view of individual freedoms and clauses in the constitution. I often like to tell them that the constitution is a guiding document, not a suicide pact.
Ideally, we should live by the idealized impartiality and objectivity that Scientists should have while interacting with the world. The idea that Scientists should be in the ivory tower, away from the grime of humanity and refraining from commenting on matters that connect and are of import with the body politic. People will mention gender, sexuality, climate change, abortion etc as these pivotal points where science can't give the answers and therefore science must ixnay and look away.
But I would like to raise the idea of science Carl Sagan had. Science as a candle in the dark. Sagan would talk at length about the development of science in ancient societies, and how unconnected these developments were from the lives of the population. Heron of Alexandria created a steam engine in the ancient world, but he never applied to alleviate the burdens of humans. It was used as a curiosity for the powerful. To quote his immortal words, "The permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not."
Why shouldn't we use our insight into the human condition and the broader perspective science offers us to inform our moral choices? Why should scientists bind themselves into an idealized suicide pact when they're under assault? Why can't scientists bring down the fire from Olympus and share it with the populace?
Our problem stems from the fires of ignorance and the idea that someone's ignorance is equal to someone else's research or knowledge. Why can't scientists use the scientific method to investigate it and share their perspective with the world?
Science tends to give people something akin to the overseer effect; why shouldn't that be shared with the world, if it moves us just a bit in the right direction?
Is the potential for misuse great? Yes, but what's the alternative? Stagnation? An absence of the humanizing presence of science in the great moral debates? Why should that be the realm of charlatans and the working of mitochondria that of science? Why can't scientists connect the two and work to illuminate the darkness?
Given that the universe was not made for the enjoyment of humans, everyone needs to be prepared to accept their preferred policies may have no empirical backing.
The author only wants conservatives purged. I want climate deniers and diversity sycophants alike purged from the scientific apparatus.
You can imagine racists and sexists at that time appealing to 'science' to maintain their privilege and worldview. You can see this now too, evidence free sweeping assertions based on some scientific study but not supported by that study and thus science, but presented as 'science'.
Large segments of the population have suffered grievously based on this kind of 'science'. Hitler used eugenics and science. Science is not some absolute truth, its a long drawn process to collect evidence, test assertions and arrive at some truth, and its always been used and co-opted by those in power to advance their objectives.
Because we don't understand the enemy.
The remedy isn't messaging, framing, engagement, empathy, discussion, or whatever else rational people hope will induce irrationals to step into the light.
Trying to sneak science thru the infotainment propaganda blockade ain't gonna work. And is a waste of effort.
Perhaps the alternative is our own media empire.
Fox News was run at a loss its first decade. Something like $500m/yr is spent, at a loss, on the right wing noise machine. All those popular alt-right sites have patrons.
Does the left have anything comparable? In scale and gumption?
I don't know if it'd work. Reason ain't sexy. Versus the outrage and fear factory. But I'd like to try something new.
--
Also, impartiality and objectivity is a trap. Just tell your story sincerely, unapologetically. The opponents will blather regardless, so don't share your soapbox.
EDIT: Do downvoters question that the majority of prominent news outlets are left-wing or that the left has anti-science positions?
My mentor's theory is that the assault on reason, America's proud tradition of anti-intellectualism, took a brief hiatus after WWII because the Cold War and the space race required rocket scientists and engineers. So a brief truce of sorts was maintained between the humanists and the know-nothings.
Sad to think we'll need an external existential threat like an alien invasion or imminent asteroid strike to pause the food fight.
I appreciate that they are left-leaning, however they use aggressively use 'plausible deniability' to infest (and allow others to) this site with NYT, VOX, scientific-american, NPR and other US-centric left propaganda machines.
'Plausible deniability' used by HN moderators involves, letting through articles and opinions that are just touching 'technology' (that's where plausible comes in), while mostly reflecting the left agenda and talking points.
Then, when conservative positions are being argued in comments, they will be massively downvoted and flagged -- as (not technology relevant or offensive).
Same approach the HN moderators are applying to new posts.
My ask is for everybody who thinks this is a problem, to either not participate in these discussions, or simply move over to lobste.rs, where there is still a sense of sane.
Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.
The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)
I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.
A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.
Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.
At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.
This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.
So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.
If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm not saying it follows that things aren't biased—that would be a non sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical across that divide.
1) ideological (including political (globa/local), or religious
2) technical
3) personal (meaning focus is, specifically, on subjective position)
4) moral (meaning, focus is on subjective, but relatable at a group/society/era level)
Problem is with ( 1 ), and may be ( 4 ).
My personal view, is that if HN is to allow new submissions where (1) and (4) are present. Those submissions should go through a different flow, than (2) and (3).
These submissions should be marked as such, then reviewed by a moderator, to see if it fits the broader category of HN-allowed submissions.
And then, if the submission passes moderation, the discussion on those posts cannot follow same upvote/downvote model as ( 2 ) or (3). Because regular upvote/downvote model puts at disadvantage minority view.
-- --
WRT your question > Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor
Yes, I think selection of submissions, downvotes and flags favors disproportionally to anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male rhetoric.
I particular share a view of environment issues, though I favor non-global, trade-based solutions. So I, personally do remember incidents where my submissions or comments were downvoted on that topic.
Interestingly, on more political conservative forums, that I participate on -- when I argue a pro-environment position -- I get some pushback, sometime ridicule -- but my comments never 'grayed out' or flagged.
-- Sorry for a long, response. But yes. I favor particular ideology and moral stance. Everybody has those positions.
I also appreciate, particularly, flexibility of mind and personal ability to adjust to something different if circumstances or new information dictates that.
I have yet to find any discussion that would cause me a shift in my positions on (1) or (4). I suspect this is same with other people, but being tested by questions, or telling others what I think -- is engaging, nevertheless.
Another thing, I noticed, that I tend to use 'reciprocal' tone. So the actual tone would depend on some selection/aggregation of other folks tone.
My overall complaint, if I may call it that, is flagging/graying out expressions that are conservative-leaning.
> Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?
Generally, yes, of course.
> Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is biased.
In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g. because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.
Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN is biased against their political orientation.
But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think this--I think it's a fair observation.
And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN is biased to the left.
I am often not correct in recognizing even my own cognitive biases. So, of course, I do not know what you think. To answer your question otherwise, would be pretentious.
But I am certain, that I feel the unfair bias and censorship against the conservative points of view. In both: what stories are allowed to be posted, and how the comments are moderated.
I am also certain, that would feel much happier with the quality of discussion -- if divisive topics with just a passing relation to modern technology and without substantial evidence based analysis -- would be left to other forums.
Again, thank you for your reply (I did not expect it, I only expected to be flagged again). And thank you for personal time and effort to moderate HN.