Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Politics of Science: Why Scientists Might Not Say What the Evidence Supports
Quillette ^ | 29 Nov, 2017 | Jonny Anomaly

Posted on 11/30/2017 7:43:57 PM PST by MtnClimber

Suppose a scientist makes a bold claim that turns out to be true. How confident are you that this claim would become widely accepted?

extraordinary evidence. Still, the indirect evidence is mounting and most cosmologists now believe that dark matter exists. To the extent that non-scientists think about this issue at all, we tend to defer to experts in the field and move on with our lives.

But what about politically contentious topics? Does it work the same way? Suppose we have evidence for the truth of a hypothesis the consequences of which many people fear. For example, suppose we have reasonably strong evidence to believe there are average biological differences between men and women, or between different ethnic or racial groups. Would most people defer to the evidence and move on with their lives?............

There are many forms of pluralistic ignorance, and some of them are deeply important for how science works. Consider the science of sex differences as a case in point. Earlier in the year James Damore was fired from Google for circulating an internal memo that questioned the dominant view of Google’s diversity team. The view he questioned is that men and women are identical in both abilities and interests, and that sexism alone can explain why Google hires more men than women. He laid out a litany of evidence suggesting that even if average biological differences between men and women are small, these differences will tend to manifest themselves in occupations that select for people who exhibit qualities at the extreme ends of a bell curve that plots a distribution of abilities and interests.

(Excerpt) Read more at quillette.com ...


TOPICS: Science; Society
KEYWORDS: bias; pressure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: sparklite2
Should have been here for the crevo threads.

But short of that, pick up a contemporary book on human sexuality and that will show the the pretended autonomy of theoretical thought.

21 posted on 11/30/2017 8:40:52 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JGT

When that passion is overtaken by an unceasing desire for scientific truth to replace transcendent Truth,
.....................
That’s another thing I’ve noticed. The scientific method is sufficient to power a civilization, cure diseases, put landers on another planet. But when it bumps up against the teachings of ancient desert dwellers, science has to give way. Sorry, no sale.


22 posted on 11/30/2017 8:43:52 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aspasia

An experiment was done in the late sixties where a subject was hooked up to a monitor. Then the subject was given a trigger which stopped a clock when pressed. He was instructed to pull the trigger on the spur of the moment, then record the time when the clock stopped.

I can’t remember all the details, but what they found was that seconds before the subject reported making a conscious decision to stop the clock, signals were already building up in the muscles that controlled the trigger.

IOW, the little guy sitting in our heads who makes conscious decisions is really under the influence of something happening at a deeper level and the notion of free will needs tempering.


23 posted on 11/30/2017 8:52:34 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

ancient dessert dwellers—we love them! They have happy nookie with animals, OK! Baby animals!


24 posted on 11/30/2017 8:52:54 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

“Steven Weinberg is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles.”


25 posted on 11/30/2017 8:53:21 PM PST by dr_lew (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
Science cannot be your sole guide to universality, especially given the fact that it is subject to the human passions (as you yourself stated). What if this “objective” rationalized science says that the redistribution of income is the most efficient and effective remedy for curing poverty? You are giving the human foundation of scientism far too much credit. Your scientism can give rationalistic explanations, but it cannot tell why one is “better” or more moral than another. That is the fatal flaw in blind obedience to the god of science.
26 posted on 11/30/2017 8:55:07 PM PST by JGT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aspasia

LOL Desert and dessert gets me every time.


27 posted on 11/30/2017 8:55:29 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JGT

I’ll take scientism over whatever is in second place.


28 posted on 11/30/2017 8:56:40 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
spelling? Pshaw! Put down your O'Rourke conservatism and work out some logophobia!.
29 posted on 11/30/2017 8:59:34 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
It's not a question of science vs. everything else. The question is, is scientism alone sufficient to give us material truths about phenomena and sufficient insight about transcendent Truths regarding human behavior. It's not an either/or issue. Blind faith in science is as myopic as blind faith in anything else. It needs to be complimented in order to be as complete as humanly possible. Surely you can see that.
30 posted on 11/30/2017 9:03:15 PM PST by JGT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

Read The Bell Curve by Dr. Charles Murray. Then consider the courage it took to write it.


31 posted on 11/30/2017 9:03:35 PM PST by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or ywour own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

Yeah, you’d probably confess Marx and Comte, too.


32 posted on 11/30/2017 9:03:49 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Spok

that’s the Post of the Day.
I read and believed the Bell Curve.
Makes me a racist, I guess.


33 posted on 11/30/2017 9:05:07 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aspasia

Heh. I’m a libertarian, if that helps.


34 posted on 11/30/2017 9:05:52 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Ballotechnics is a branch of chemistry concerning a class of materials, which when initiated by a shock wave, produces extreme heat rather than an explosion. Generally there is little to no gas production, thus no pressure pulse originating from the chemicals. Think in terms of Thermite.

Most of this work has been carried out at Sandia NL and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Internet fiction scripted around the concept resulted in “Red Mercury” as a distraction.

A class of chemical reactions with an outcome similar to Ballotechnics, one which may be initiated by an electrical high current discharge rather than a pressure shock, results in the production of extremely energetic light. The radiation produced is of the extreme ultraviolet class, possessing a strongly ionizing character. Fully ionized plasma from a chemical reaction is one possible outcome. Detractors suggest only a nuclear process could be so vigorous, though no radioactive signatures are presented.

The evidence gathered during research of this phenomenon does not agree with the established narrative. Only an in-your-face overwhelming demonstration of irrefutable proof, will circumvent this entrenchment of self interest. A work-in-progress.


35 posted on 11/30/2017 9:07:00 PM PST by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

That’s fine, be a libertarian. Just don’t let it be an excuse for you errors.


36 posted on 11/30/2017 9:11:27 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ozark Tom

Fascinating. thanks for that.


37 posted on 11/30/2017 9:13:06 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: aspasia

My friend, I am too long in the tooth to be concerned about my errors, both ontological and existential.


38 posted on 11/30/2017 9:15:44 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

You are not my friend.


39 posted on 11/30/2017 9:16:44 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: aspasia

No, but you are mine. It’s too late.
LOL


40 posted on 11/30/2017 9:17:50 PM PST by sparklite2 (I hereby designate the ongoing kerfuffle Diddle-Gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson