Science and Totalitarianism

[Strike For The South]

I mean, what is science being "taught right"? All that comes to mind to me is the new atheism movement and its thinly veiled Islamophboia, or the techbros who wish to harken back to some soviet style Technocracy.

Human beings are more than data and results. I've got my eye on science.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I mean, what is science being "taught right"? All that comes to mind to me is the new atheism movement and its thinly veiled Islamophboia, or the techbros who wish to harken back to some soviet style Technocracy.

Human beings are more than data and results. I've got my eye on science.

Poor phrasing on my part. I think the gist of what I have read entails a science curriculum that more emphasizes values such as intellectual honesty, deliberation, and patience, in addition to the fundamental knowledge that students are expected to learn.

[Montmorency]

Poor phrasing on my part. I think the gist of what I have read entails a science curriculum that more emphasizes values such as intellectual honesty, deliberation, and patience, in addition to the fundamental knowledge that students are expected to learn.

Are professional scientists especially honest, deliberative, or patient as individuals?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are professional scientists especially honest, deliberative, or patient as individuals?

They do skew that way a notch from the broader population. Whether that is a product of change resulting from training in research or self selection into a field that fits their orientation or both is harder to say.

Your question implies the answer that scientific researchers still retain their human weaknesses and blind spots and that these are not excised in their enirety ffom an individual’s character. You are correct in that of course. Scientific researchers may average a hint better than the broader population in adhering to what the data says and not gaming it. But scientists too wil distirt things at times.

[rory_20_uk]

They do skew that way a notch from the broader population. Whether that is a product of change resulting from training in research or self selection into a field that fits their orientation or both is harder to say.

Your question implies the answer that scientific researchers still retain their human weaknesses and blind spots and that these are not excised in their enirety ffom an individual’s character. You are correct in that of course. Scientific researchers may average a hint better than the broader population in adhering to what the data says and not gaming it. But scientists too wil distirt things at times.

Scientists might be more able to discern the truth and comprehend data "correctly" (or at least have a better understanding of the strength of it and how to double check), but do they propagate the truth or the lies? How many worked for British American Tobacco et al?

When I was at University and young and naive, a mature student opened my eyes by showing me research that had been done on a random topic and the different studies on different populations with different metrics reached diametrically opposite conclusions.

Everyone has to live, has to earn a living. Some might have the luxury of independent money and a knowledge of safety but most don't. I have a science degree, and I work heavily on scientific and clinical data. But whenever I look at it I am working for a client who has an agenda to help them sell a product. And to be honest I like the work.

[Montmorency]

They do skew that way a notch from the broader population. Whether that is a product of change resulting from training in research or self selection into a field that fits their orientation or both is harder to say.

Your question implies the answer that scientific researchers still retain their human weaknesses and blind spots and that these are not excised in their enirety ffom an individual’s character. You are correct in that of course. Scientific researchers may average a hint better than the broader population in adhering to what the data says and not gaming it. But scientists too wil distirt things at times.

Or analogously: are cops especially honest? Are soldiers especially honorable?

These sorts of stereotypes need to be handled carefully, as they may turn out to be little more than self-serving propaganda.

It may still be possible, that a certain configuration of science education could instill targeted traits or habits, but that's several layers of empirical question.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or analogously: are cops especially honest? Are soldiers especially honorable?

These sorts of stereotypes need to be handled carefully, as they may turn out to be little more than self-serving propaganda.

We expect our cops to be honest and our soldiers to be honorable. When we see them not behave that way, people become outraged. Societies expectation becomes reality if we choose to enforce the stereotype.
Allowing ourselves to consider politicians to be irredeemable, corrupt, type A assholes with no regard for their constituents has led to an America where only half of its citizens bother to consistently vote. Because "hey, the lesser of two evils is still evil right?"

Is our Constitution special in its structure? Not at all, but our belief that it is special has carried America for 200 years on a Presidential system that has failed numerous times in Latin America. Our expectations of that piece of paper are stronger than the cult of personalities that arise in political discourse, which is why we are not a banana republic, yet.

[Montmorency]

We expect our cops to be honest and our soldiers to be honorable. When we see them not behave that way, people become outraged. Societies expectation becomes reality if we choose to enforce the stereotype.
Allowing ourselves to consider politicians to be irredeemable, corrupt, type A assholes with no regard for their constituents has led to an America where only half of its citizens bother to consistently vote. Because "hey, the lesser of two evils is still evil right?"

Expectation can become reality in the opposite direction. The dynamic you hope for is similar to one of the arguments for monarchism, that responsibility plus station translates to duty. We can all agree this was a "self-serving" mythology. I suppose you would also argue that we should talk like, 'Mr. President Trump, I respectfully disagree...' because you think it preserves the shreds of majesty still associated with the office, and so a sense of American pride (read: chauvinism)? Ultimately this is how you reach Jordan Peterson and his instrumental religious dogmatism.

Back to the original point, questioning whether professionalism equates to virtue is not tantamount to denigration.

Is our Constitution special in its structure? Not at all, but our belief that it is special has carried America for 200 years

America is exceptional because Americans believe they're exceptional?

butisittrue.mp3