Academic Ideologues Are Corrupting STEM. The Silent Majority Must Fight Back | Hacker News Reader

Academic Ideologues Are Corrupting STEM. The Silent Majority Must Fight Back

quillette.com

42 points_htpa23 comments

This is a follow-up article, after one providing a historically-well-informed look based in Soviet experiences.

I don't know if the following is real, but I clipped it the other day from an online comment:

“Glaciers, Gender & Science, a Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research” --- “Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, & glaciers, particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1. knowledge producers 2. gendered science & knowledge 3. systems of scientific domination & 4. alternative representations of glaciers merging feminist post-colonial science studies & feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, & epistemiologies in dynamic social ecological systems, thereby leading to more just & equitable science & human / ice interactions.”

To me, what is more ominous (but related) is explicit political tests even for would-be STEM professors.

Thanks for pointing out the glacier article - it looks really interesting - here’s a 2016 interview with the author (a science historian who studies people who study glaciers), Mark Carey (a man) https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-g...

I wonder what's so ominous about listening to what historically marginalized groups have to say about glaciers instead of systematically censoring them on the basis of their identity.

Fair point. I inserted a snippet I did not have the provinence for, and I did not see the full import. Mea culpa.

However, there seems to be more going on within that snippet than "We will study glacier change impacts with particular sensitivity to women's views." Some of those other things do appear pertinant to the subject of the OP at Quillette.

Why does the historical side matter in this context? Their work is perfectly capable of speaking for itself.

Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link.

For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.)

Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term).

From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.

Poe's law-ing pretty hard on this. Thought its satire, but reading the interview it appears serious? Send help pls

Title appears to be inaccurate. It removed the word "liberal" which is before "majority" on the original article.

The title lengths are limited, but you're right. I wish they'd kept "liberal" in there

I was character-limited. It was either: "The Silent Liberal Majority Must Fight", or "The Silent Majority Must Fight Back".

Great article, and beautifully written.

tldr; it's okay to teach Fischer despite his being a rank eugenist.

It's like Seinfeld said regarding Cosby, you can separate the art from the artist (sadly, Seinfeld backpedalled after Colbert countered pandering to his woke audience).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com