Until this kind of thing gets successful pushback, we should assume they'll continue to reorient institutions around the culture war and there will be no outbreak of common sense.
You wouldn't use a thermometer that was always 10C too high to measure and reports temperatures, without pointing out that the thermometer has a 10C bias, would you? Why would you oppose introspection about oneself and one's own potential biases in knowledge production?
Maybe I'm engaging in FUD and these people will be content with some minor efforts towards restraining bias, but in my experience it's never enough.
You act like bias isn't actually a problem in science, but when I think back to the number of studies recruiting on campus at my Highly Selective Undergrad Institution (TM), and cross reference that with the student population, it's really easy to understand the claims that science is WEIRD[1].
If, in the spirit of the proposed "bias declaiming section", a social scientist made a point of saying that they're systematically biased against conservative and white/rural viewpoints, how do you think that would go over? Pat on the back for introspection?
Why don’t you think so? "Our own academic perspective limits us e.g. in our survey design and language, making it harder for us to connect with our respondents" is something I heard and learned over and over and over again.
My contention is that any "unbiasing" which said "we are going to lean conservative to counter our innate liberal bias" would not be welcomed.
(I'm a liberal, btw, I just believe in calling a spade a spade. Don't call one-sided activism "unbiasing".)
2. Even if it was, some people are assumed to be "biased" based on silly things like the color of their skin or what gender they are. The bias-checking process is biased.
Great argument
> Account joined 34 days ago
Nevermind, I'm sorry I said anything.
In fact we all benefit daily from scientific discoveries made in oppressive, violent, bigoted regimes.
If someone asked VanguardStem to fund a fluid dynamics project, what are you imagining they would have to say in order to pass the ISM criteria? This concern comes across like hyperbolic fearmongering.
It’s been discussed on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053149
In order to be considered for a job, you lead with a "diversity statement", this is looked at before your job qualifications even, and there are right and wrong opinions to put in it. "I want to treat everyone equally" is a Wrong Opinion.
Unless you just want to blame people who were previously kids, (aka autonomous adults) for shifting global priorities as if they shouldn't be allowed to prioritise that. In which case, lolwat.
Maybe the woke people can go feed the homeless and stop making physics phds write ideological essays about social issues. Then everyone wins.
This isn't new you have always needed to give a good reason why your research should be funded. The funding should be used to progress human knowledge or contribute to your community, save lives etc.
The days of righting "fluid dynamics is cool $500k plz" aren't behind us they simply never existed.