Aug 21, 2024 04:45 PM
(This post was last modified: Aug 21, 2024 05:06 PM by C C.)
Why I have resigned from the American Psychological Association (Gregg Henriques)
https://medium.com/unified-theory-of-kno...f75a85d0ba
EXCERPTS: Although I was an APA Fellow in the past, I have resigned my membership from the American Psychological Association. I cannot align with either its vision of “science” or its vision of antiracist activism, and I especially reject the way the organization ideologically blends the two, as if there was no conflict or tension between them.
[...] One of the major claims of the lead article is that the authors are in a privileged place to define what is meant by science. They inform us that what has traditionally been called “good science” is an epistemology developed by White supremacists from a colonizing Europe. No longer. They understand how to bring a multiplicity of epistemologies together so that no one is marginalized (except, perhaps, for the old white positivists). They go on to inform us that from this enlightened perspective of many different voices, we will all be able to see the truth much more clearly... (MORE - details)
A Skeptical guide to glyphosate: Toolkit for ten common claims
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...on-claims/
EXCERPT: Modern agriculture seeks to fill gaps in food security, reinforcing and improving human health. A new eye on sustainability welcomes new (and occasionally old) technology to make land use more efficient and lessen environmental impact. With intrinsic concerns of health, safety, environmental stewardship, and farmers’ economic sustainability, glyphosate has met these goals for five decades. While there is insufficient evidence of health impacts at current exposures, use has been and will continue to be monitored closely. Ongoing research should continue to be alert for any actual risk, perhaps in certain population segments. As of the writing of this article, glyphosate remains useful for farmers to ensure productivity, affordability, and stability of food crops. Although it remains a political target, our job as a scientific and skeptical community is to continue to evaluate claims for veracity and clearly communicate actual risk and benefits to the public. (MORE - details)
Should we knock science off of its pedestal?
https://www.sequencermag.com/should-we-k...edestal-2/
EXCERPT: As research grants feed the "publish or perish" engine driving modern science, a researcher's priorities can too easily become more papers, more students, better papers, a better name. Those priorities can elevate a person's profile for accomplishing wonderful work. (Not inherently bad!!) However, they generally only do so by propping up a world run by "high-impact" academic journals and scientists who are no less flawed than you or me.
It's natural to trust the names of scientists, journals, universities, and labs that we recognize more. It's also natural to underestimate that bias. The credibility we lend to science and scientists should not obviate the need for criticism. Prestige-forward science gets us into trouble because too few people understand what science really is. (MORE - details)
https://medium.com/unified-theory-of-kno...f75a85d0ba
EXCERPTS: Although I was an APA Fellow in the past, I have resigned my membership from the American Psychological Association. I cannot align with either its vision of “science” or its vision of antiracist activism, and I especially reject the way the organization ideologically blends the two, as if there was no conflict or tension between them.
[...] One of the major claims of the lead article is that the authors are in a privileged place to define what is meant by science. They inform us that what has traditionally been called “good science” is an epistemology developed by White supremacists from a colonizing Europe. No longer. They understand how to bring a multiplicity of epistemologies together so that no one is marginalized (except, perhaps, for the old white positivists). They go on to inform us that from this enlightened perspective of many different voices, we will all be able to see the truth much more clearly... (MORE - details)
A Skeptical guide to glyphosate: Toolkit for ten common claims
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...on-claims/
EXCERPT: Modern agriculture seeks to fill gaps in food security, reinforcing and improving human health. A new eye on sustainability welcomes new (and occasionally old) technology to make land use more efficient and lessen environmental impact. With intrinsic concerns of health, safety, environmental stewardship, and farmers’ economic sustainability, glyphosate has met these goals for five decades. While there is insufficient evidence of health impacts at current exposures, use has been and will continue to be monitored closely. Ongoing research should continue to be alert for any actual risk, perhaps in certain population segments. As of the writing of this article, glyphosate remains useful for farmers to ensure productivity, affordability, and stability of food crops. Although it remains a political target, our job as a scientific and skeptical community is to continue to evaluate claims for veracity and clearly communicate actual risk and benefits to the public. (MORE - details)
Should we knock science off of its pedestal?
https://www.sequencermag.com/should-we-k...edestal-2/
EXCERPT: As research grants feed the "publish or perish" engine driving modern science, a researcher's priorities can too easily become more papers, more students, better papers, a better name. Those priorities can elevate a person's profile for accomplishing wonderful work. (Not inherently bad!!) However, they generally only do so by propping up a world run by "high-impact" academic journals and scientists who are no less flawed than you or me.
It's natural to trust the names of scientists, journals, universities, and labs that we recognize more. It's also natural to underestimate that bias. The credibility we lend to science and scientists should not obviate the need for criticism. Prestige-forward science gets us into trouble because too few people understand what science really is. (MORE - details)