This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Eh. You might have anticipated this objection when you said that "some of you might be tempted to scoff at this", but it is really quite easy to scoff and say that this account of the state of "science" is a postmodernist exercise in pulling wool over the reader's eyes, where I want "postmodernist" to be interpreted somewhat idiosyncratically as encompassing all uses of language that are aimed at extracting value from one's fellow humans rather than from nature. All these fields you list that now engage in "different ways of knowing" appear to me to just become increasingly barren as they deviate from the essentials of the scientific method (or, perhaps, the modernist toolbox of science, which queries our instance of nature for its parameters, mathematics, which derives truths that hold in all instances of nature, and engineering, which gives best practices for leveraging understanding of parameters to achieve a desired outcome). Pharmacology produces a procession of p-hacked drugs that don't work, with the exception of some narrow domains of heavily automated industrial drug discovery that are basically Bayesian in nature; geology has the same cliquish turf wars that you see in history and any other discipline which will never have to contend with a ground truth (pun acknowledged but initially unintended); and my understanding of the state of particle physics or cosmology is that at this point it's basically just a way of burning outrageous amounts of money to generate IFLScience content and the track record of projects such as the LHC shows that nobody is capable of predicting anything better than random guess.
In my eyes, what is happening there is not that science has transcended dogma and reached new heights under the aegis of Philosophers of Science enlightening its practicioners about the validity of radically different methods and norms, but instead that structural incentives and plain incompetence have resulted in a proliferation of bad science practiced by people who are much better at producing eloquent defenses of their wrong methods and norms, with enthusiastic fire support from the "wordcels" studying history and philosophy of science, than at correcting said methods and norms and actually generating new knowledge of reality.
More options
Context Copy link