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 may be naive or simply out of the loop and not following what's going on with DOGE this month vs last, but is the point to actually defund science? Or is the point to "break stuff", in order to stress-test the system and find out what's actually important, so that we can then focus on just the important stuff, while cutting out the stuff that was previously being funded but not likely to help anything? Basically, by downscaling, the stuff that's actually important will come forward and be made apparent, so we can continue to fund it. That's at least what I thought they were trying to achieve.
I'm not saying what DOGE is doing is correct, or that they're actually managing to successfully achieve the goal of cutting out only the waste. But I see a lot of people saying that DOGE no longer wants the US to do science research, and I guess I just doubt that that is actually true.
If this is the theory, it strongly suggests that they're barking up the wrong tree, because government programs don't have the same feedback mechanisms (or goals) as private firms. If you shut down something important in private industry, you have the clear feedback of
your company going out of businesslosing money. There's no analog for government funded research. Nothing is going to explode if you defund a bunch of really important basic science. The government won't collapse. It just... won't happen. The losses will take the form of foregone gains. The closest thing you'll get to financial feedback is angry people yelling about it, but that contains very little useful information.Trying to apply start-up logic to government activities is a mistake. If you want to figure out which research is worthwhile you're going to have to do serious investigations and exercise your best judgment, but that's pretty much the opposite of 'move fast and break things'.
You might be right. I in no way think that it's evident that DOGE is taking good steps that will bring about positive change with certainty. But I'm just sick (as I have been since 2016) of people ascribing evil or stupid motives to Trump that he probably doesn't actually have.
Also, sort of a nitpick, but having been in companies that have taken the break stuff and downsize approach, losing money isn't the only, and certainly not the earliest, feedback signal leadership looks for in deciding what to reinstate. Applying pressure downwards by defunding stuff causes your reports to take the initiative to make a good case to you what is actually important, which does a lot of the legwork for the "serious investigations", and lets you apply your best judgement more easily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is one theory of what they’re doing.
But man, idk. I think seeing the research experiences for undergraduates (REU) being shelved across so much of the country is what got to me here, in addition to watching my own students have to deal with shelving their year long products (on the same day).
If we’re choosing not to support and train kids who are into science and trying to learn, we’re really losing out.
If that is their strategy, I hope that information can flow to them somehow and the things which train up the scientific workforce get repaired sooner rather than later.
Yeah, me too. It is a scary time, no question.
Part of me wants to say, "it's been a scary time for the past 5 years due to the government destroying the economy with their stupid covid responses, and now they're just trying to take unprecedented drastic measures to fix it", but I don't know if I fully believe that.
It's a dilemma in my beliefs vs my hopes. I don't really believe that tearing down the system, or even coming close to doing so, is ever really a good idea. But I always hope that something can make things better. I would have said in the past that technological advancement was basically always that force that makes things better and saves us from economic depression, but this time, the technological advancement that's on the horizon may be just as dangerous. So it makes me want to hope that an attempt to fix the system will actually save us instead, despite my rational judgement. But really, that's just emotions, and it's not something to be trusted, just as I tell leftists who want to tear down the system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link