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 think that attitude is how we got Sociology and Psychology in the position we are in right now. The ideal time to have armed engineering an physics departments with powerful tools to fire any DEI entrist (even not in there departments) meddling with their work was 10 years ago. Maybe 15. The next best time is now. If there isn't strong action now, in 10 years Science and Nature will look like today's Scientific American.
That's not at all what we are discussing. The discussion is over whether the fields are currently compromised by progressive ideologues, not how you would keep them free of ideological meddling.
They are compromised. Its just that the level is not nearly to that level of other fields. Sure, they papers about new compounds extracted from coral, or whatever, are still going to be accurate. But they will be accompanied by a piece about how coral extraction chemistry needs more women and BIPOC.
Which wouldn't change the truth value of what they're saying, which is something OP explicitly said - that they were no longer truth-seeking for the sake of it. To quote the top-level comment.
So then currently biochemistry is about 80% truth seeking, while sociology is 1%. But, importantly, biochemistry lends the sociology department its own credibility as well. They are inseparable in normal situations, so they are also part of that 99% non-truthseeking.
Insofar as it's activities go, maybe, but not how truthful its biochemistry-related conclusions are. Unless there's proof that biochemists are lying about or hiding their results to support a political conclusion?
Inseparable to who? Because people just about anywhere can make the distinction, and it's not hard (or outside the Overton Window) to explain to people why a per-field analysis is required.
It actually is incredibly hard. Berkley "scientist" goes on LA TV and explains something, and this means that person is an apolitical genius at the top of a very important institution whether that is a chemical engineer talking about the specifics of formulating new pharmaceuticals, an astrophysicist talking about the new space telescope, an epidemiologist running interference for Fauci's masking regime, or a psychologist saying men can become women. The public isn't qualified to split that granularity at all, and the media don't make it easy for even the more qualified people because they want the reputation laundering to happen.
Those fields are not the same. There are various shades of objectivity to them (which most people can correctly intuit - STEM is objective, sociology is not. At least, not as objective). The people who come on TV are not wizards descending from their towers for the first time, and we know this because everyone vigorously acts to discredit those who don't support their preferred narratives. In doing so, they disseminated the very ideas you're claiming people can't use well - that there are fraud and hackster academics, even schools, who cannot be trusted because they are ideologically compromised.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link