Nov 22, 2024 07:24 PM
(This post was last modified: Nov 22, 2024 07:50 PM by C C.)
Parody Alcove: The presuppositions presented in the first article make it clear why scientists coming out of the closet as activists for left-wing values (expressing "soulfulness") would just inflame the traditionalist community all the more. It's not socialists and progressives -- or the Democratic Party at large -- that they have to win back. Even attracting lost independents would mean placing primary emphasis on the proletariat again. And that's just not going to happen. The smaller, "special" marginalized population groups are king with respect to what contemporary social justice movements want to chiefly focus on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scientists should strive to delineate between scientific facts and their political preferences
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/a-...pportunity
EXCERPT: "A primary reason why Republicans distrust science is that they perceive that universities and institutional science are fused with the Democratic party. Surveys of party affiliation among academics more-or-less bear this out, as Democrat faculty outnumber Republicans by much more than 10 to 1 in most departments. Accordingly, there is a substantial concern, even emanating from within the academy, that the research output of universities is heavily skewed toward findings that support left-leaning worldviews."
Soul Men and Women—what must science do to regain public trust?
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.10...24-00325-0
EXCERPTS: Science is now seen as just one more example of ideology [...] Understanding the growing mistrust in and rejection of science may contain the keys to knowing how to fight it.
These versions of anti-science sentiments churning through modern culture are not new. For at least a century, some on the right and the left worried that science, initially due to evolutionary theory, and later, the development and use of the atomic bomb and the resulting ‘cold war’, represented a moral threat to civilization, due to its corrosive effects on humanity’s self-conception...
[...] Our contemporary fights over science reflect the potent impact of this tradition which claims that science lacks values, takes a purposeless view of our existence and sees humans as automata deluded about free will...
[...] What is required is more than just efforts to correct misinformation or to bring warranted evidence to bear on contentious issues. That work is hugely important, but it requires a parallel effort to reclaim science’s voice as a trusted source to succeed. No amount of facts will suffice to influence any controversy if the audience does not trust the messenger...
Science may find no purpose or meaning in what cosmology or evolutionary theory have to say about eternity and our place in it, the story of evolution may lack a special place for humans, but that hardly means that science is done by people who are soulless or amoral...
[...] The immediate thought is to invoke scientific neutrality—science is apolitical, neutral, value-free, so leave us alone. Wrong wrong wrong!
Scientists are political, non-neutral, they have values, their work is driven by them... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scientists should strive to delineate between scientific facts and their political preferences
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/a-...pportunity
EXCERPT: "A primary reason why Republicans distrust science is that they perceive that universities and institutional science are fused with the Democratic party. Surveys of party affiliation among academics more-or-less bear this out, as Democrat faculty outnumber Republicans by much more than 10 to 1 in most departments. Accordingly, there is a substantial concern, even emanating from within the academy, that the research output of universities is heavily skewed toward findings that support left-leaning worldviews."
Soul Men and Women—what must science do to regain public trust?
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.10...24-00325-0
EXCERPTS: Science is now seen as just one more example of ideology [...] Understanding the growing mistrust in and rejection of science may contain the keys to knowing how to fight it.
These versions of anti-science sentiments churning through modern culture are not new. For at least a century, some on the right and the left worried that science, initially due to evolutionary theory, and later, the development and use of the atomic bomb and the resulting ‘cold war’, represented a moral threat to civilization, due to its corrosive effects on humanity’s self-conception...
[...] Our contemporary fights over science reflect the potent impact of this tradition which claims that science lacks values, takes a purposeless view of our existence and sees humans as automata deluded about free will...
[...] What is required is more than just efforts to correct misinformation or to bring warranted evidence to bear on contentious issues. That work is hugely important, but it requires a parallel effort to reclaim science’s voice as a trusted source to succeed. No amount of facts will suffice to influence any controversy if the audience does not trust the messenger...
Science may find no purpose or meaning in what cosmology or evolutionary theory have to say about eternity and our place in it, the story of evolution may lack a special place for humans, but that hardly means that science is done by people who are soulless or amoral...
[...] The immediate thought is to invoke scientific neutrality—science is apolitical, neutral, value-free, so leave us alone. Wrong wrong wrong!
Scientists are political, non-neutral, they have values, their work is driven by them... (MORE - missing details)