Now that he's president, here come the reprisals. Zero out NSF's funding, shut down NPR, end the COVID era break on student loan enforcement, withdraw grants from Harvard.
> it’s funny because while I probably agree with you,
What do you agree with?
> FWIW, I think it is intellectually immature to talk about politicians like you know them. What else does Donald perceive? What was he like when you spent time with him?
I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that OP was talking about anything other than the Nature Magazine. And to know what Donald perceives, you could ask Jeffery Epstein. Oh wait.. you can't.
This reads like you have a serious point to make about there being two different Nature magazines, but there aren't and there is absolutely no ambiguity that could lead you toward the concept of "nature" since he linked to the magazine that you are referring to. Not funny.
If your research is funded by taxpayer dollars, you're a public servant and you should welcome public accountability. You should accept that explaining the public benefit of what you do is part of your job, and accept the possibility that the public won't see eye-to-eye with regard to that benefit.
The fundamental problem is that scientists stopped thinking of themselves as public servants, and started thinking of themselves as lecturers whose job it is to scold the public. They stopped working to follow the evidence wherever it lead, and switched to promoting trendy ideologies. Remember during COVID how we were all supposed to isolate, until the Floyd protests started and suddenly the need for isolation disappeared?
"Three-in-four liberal faculty support mandatory diversity statements while 90% of conservative faculty and 56% of moderate faculty see them as political litmus tests."
...
"For decades, college and university faculty have identified as predominantly left-leaning (e.g., affiliating with the Democratic party, self-identifying as liberal), a skew that has become more pronounced over the past three decades.[40] For instance, in the Higher Education Research Institute’s 1990 faculty survey, 6% identified as “far left,” 16% identified as “conservative,” and 0.4% identified as “far right.” In 2020 these percentages were 12%, 10%, and 0.2%, respectively.[41] College students are also predominantly left-leaning, though the rate is closer to 2:1 left vs. right, compared to 6:1 among faculty.[42]"
..."significant portions of faculty say that they would discriminate against colleagues with different ideological views in professional settings (e.g., during anonymous peer-review) or during day-to-day social interactions.[43]"
Academics successfully hacked away the branch that they themselves were standing on. Large fractions of the US electorate no longer believe that the research these academics do is a good-faith attempt to advance their interests as voters and taxpayers. And so they're not interested in funding it. Fair play if you ask me. If academia wants funding, it should do deep reforms in order to re-earn the trust of voters.
You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money.
Further more saying things like "It is your fault that you are in front of my fist" is not productive. Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.
If my tax dollars fund you in any way, you are a public servant. Someone who doesn't meet that definition should not be definition be receiving public funds.
I do not expect people who reiceve my money to be my servants. I pay for services and if they are bad I see to it that they become better, or just shut up. I am sure every weapons manufacturer should be counted as a public servant, but it really makes no sense because the work they do has not meaning for me.
Now if they try to assert power over me. That is a different. That is why you need to make lobbying laws more effective.
>In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people.
Not a hard line. Scientific papers often comment on the best public policies. It matters a lot to taxpayers if institutional characteristics mean that these papers will inevitably recommend left-wing policies.
Why would right-wingers want their tax dollars going to institutes that will just recommend left-wing policies and call it "science", without the sort of rigorous debate that true science requires?
>Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.
If scholars are following the evidence where it leads, it should be easy to give examples of them recommending right-wing policies. How many recent examples can you give of this?
Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."
He talks about the need for utter honesty, leaning over backwards.
"For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
When people call themselves "scientists", yet neglect these principles, they aren't doing science. They're cloaking their ideology in the guise of science.
Just because it happens in a university building, and calls itself "science", doesn't make it true science. Any more than the fact that Scientology has "science" in the name makes it true science.
"Trust the Science" and "Nullius in verba" (motto of the Royal Society) have practically opposite meanings. One of them is actual science; the other is a cargo cult which grants itself unearned credibility through use of the term "science".
You have to put what you are saying into context. Science is by definition conservative. It does not mean all of science is conservative or even just politicaly so.
The point is antiscience, and the right wingers need an enemy and they are turning to antiscience to do it. It is funny since you are citing FIRE I am pretty sure they will say similar stuff, I am guessing with words like "chilling effect" to describe parts the politics.
My view on the whole "it is woke" is that it is first of all an attempt of trying to construct a boogey man instead of having am honest debate. Most of what is called woke is actually just opinions. I have always seen the "it is woke" crowd as an attack on all of academia, that discussion can never be diverse enough to be anything that an out right attack.
Now we are slashing vital science projects that has nothing to do with woke, and people are arguing "science" should be blamed because someone was woke.
I am sure we think the same on many of these issues, but "Trust the science" is more or less what the Royal society said. In the end it does not matter if you are a scientist we as a people trust stories and legends more, creating monsters from thin air is a powerfull tool if you want people to trust you.
Yes because he’s throwing the baby out with the bath water, being completely myopic about the value add to society and what it takes to make America competitive.
Of course he’ll be dead before the real multi-generational consequences take effect.
Now that he's president, here come the reprisals. Zero out NSF's funding, shut down NPR, end the COVID era break on student loan enforcement, withdraw grants from Harvard.