Jan 16, 2025 10:37 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 16, 2025 10:38 PM by C C.)
Initially felt that maybe Thorp's statement was being taken too literally. Until I read in the quoted article: "Anyone who thinks the Lakota authors are not scientists just because they don’t have a bunch of credentials doesn’t really understand how science works." Whatever one's personal opinion is about indigenous science and the effects of de-Westernizing knowledge, this is still controversial territory.
That said, though, a lot of people would be saying similar for the sake of diplomatic relations and addressing old wrongs. And traditional native knowledge was tested for centuries, in terms of tribal survival and so-forth. But you don't want to leave the back door so open that all the cranks can come in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
American science and medicine are becoming increasingly infiltrated by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), to their detriment
https://www.acsh.org/news/2025/01/10/aaa...-dei-48999
INTRO: Dr. H. Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal Science since 2019, described on Substack a discussion that occurred during a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In the closing plenary session, he posed to a “panel of scientific leaders” the question, “Who is a scientist?”
The answers from the audience “ranged from very narrow (just people who are doing or planning research) to very broad (every living human).”
Then Thorp offered his opinion:
According to Thorp’s definition, even groups who impede science innovation and technology and outright quacks who promulgate dangerous disinformation could also be said to be participating in “science communication” and, therefore, are “scientists.” (MORE - details)
That said, though, a lot of people would be saying similar for the sake of diplomatic relations and addressing old wrongs. And traditional native knowledge was tested for centuries, in terms of tribal survival and so-forth. But you don't want to leave the back door so open that all the cranks can come in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
American science and medicine are becoming increasingly infiltrated by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), to their detriment
https://www.acsh.org/news/2025/01/10/aaa...-dei-48999
INTRO: Dr. H. Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal Science since 2019, described on Substack a discussion that occurred during a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In the closing plenary session, he posed to a “panel of scientific leaders” the question, “Who is a scientist?”
The answers from the audience “ranged from very narrow (just people who are doing or planning research) to very broad (every living human).”
Then Thorp offered his opinion:
My view is that everyone who contributes to the scientific enterprise is a scientist. It’s not just lab work that makes up science. It’s science policy, science communication, scientific illustration, science education and many other things. In fact, you could make the case that our current struggles aren’t about whether we’re succeeding in the laboratory but rather whether all of the other parts of science are succeeding. Perhaps they would do better if we recognized the participants as science rather than as so-called “alternative careers.”
Let’s call this the “We’re All Scientists” formulation. Needless to say, especially in mathematics and physics, that’s problematic even for those committed to social justice and inclusiveness. Thorp doesn’t define what is included in, and more importantly, who is excluded from “contributes to the scientific enterprise.” So, what we’re left with is yet another, “Let’s all hold hands around the campfire and sing kumbaya” exercise. Or, as my colleague Dr. Chuck Dinerstein put it, “a more erudite version of ‘everyone gets a trophy.’”According to Thorp’s definition, even groups who impede science innovation and technology and outright quacks who promulgate dangerous disinformation could also be said to be participating in “science communication” and, therefore, are “scientists.” (MORE - details)