This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I agree with that. I suppose my snark got out of hand.
Similar arguments can be said for other fields of academia as well. Take theoretical physics, for instance. You have an entire field of research like string theory, which makes few predictions and offers no ways of testing validity. The few predictions they've made have all been proven categorically wrong once we acquired more data. Underlying these styles of "study" seems to be looking for pretty math without considering reality. We're five decades in and nothing of value has come of it. This is similar to folks "studying" multiverses or what happened before the Big Bang.
They've fallen into the same trap as the social studies programs: doing something because it feels good, not because it's productive.
If some of these things were taken out as a degree and perhaps packaged up in a class in the philosophy department, I think people would be a lot happier.
I'm not talking about not doing research and science for the sake of it. But it's important not to mix up things that are real vs. philosophical discussions. Philosophical discussions should certainly happen! Hell, that's most of the reason for this site's existence.
Of course, there are also things like esoteric maths (number theory, graph theory, etc.). They tend not to be very "real," but they do have applicability in things like cryptography, computer science, or related fields. Graduates with those degrees can typically find jobs FWIW.
It's pretty telling that in the hard sciences, string theory is always the go-to example, while there are any number of choices elsewhere in academia. So, fine, we shut down string theory along with the other stuff. Although if string theory has really made predictions that were wrong, it's not so bad as that; it should still be shut down, but only for being wrong, not unrigorous.
Sure, string theory is kind of a gimme.
Other things that I would include for being either dumb or dangerous:
I would also take a hard look at the publish-or-perish mindset of academia that is leading to the reproducibility crisis in journal submissions across the board.
The last bullet above is a part of this, and I want to elaborate further. This is one of the things where "studies" are being cranked out that don't advance, and in fact pollute and damage the fields. A good example would be Jonathan Pruitt's publications on spider behavior. It also begs the question that even if the spider behavior studies were valid, what useful information would we glean? Similarly, pulled from recent news, why would anyone spend a million dollars on studying if cocaine makes Japanese quail more sexually active?
This doesn't even touch the insane level of administration positions found in academia, which should also be trimmed, but that's not the focus of this thread.
(If you want to watch a longer YouTube about the spider issue, I highly recommend Angela Collier's telling of the tale: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qlas3TOi_CQ. She's a physicist and a great (IMO) storyteller and educator.)
Because both quail and quail eggs are delicious. Farmers raising quail for food, or quail hens for eggs, are definitely interested in what makes quail more sexually active, especially if it can be made economically viable to incorporate into feed.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but many cosmological theories can and have been tested.
Gave us the Ebola vaccine
I have been able to find things saying that we now have a couple of Ebola vaccines but nothing for a lay audience about their method of development. Do you have a link for this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Conversely why shouldn't someone with a million dollars fund research into whether cocaine makes Japanese quail more sexually active? How can we know what we will learn from quail or spider behaviour if we don't research it?
I think this new plan in New Zealand is a good idea - we shouldn't get rid of those studies, we should just stop funding them. If they can secure private funding they should be able to study whatever they like.
Absolutely! Anyone can spend their money however they please, and no one has a say in that matter. If I want to fund a study on if meth makes earthworms horny, I should 100% have that right. But insisting that the taxpayer spend that money (in whatever country) is bordering on insane, in my opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link