So… is the idea that the way we do science, the questions we think to ask, the ways we go about answering them – that’s all dependant on the surrounding culture and is irrevocably affected by it – is that true? Well. Certainly! Just this morning I was talking to my wife about how the Victorians brought so many mummies back from Egypt that they had “mummy unwrapping parties” where the wealthy elites bought some mummies from plundered Egyptian tombs and unwrapped them, just for shits and giggles.
Think about how much archeological knowledge was lost this way!
Or think about the guy who dynamited Troy while trying to prove Troy existed.
Do you see how the way people thought about archeology changed the results of that archeology? And that’s before you get into things like assuming Greeks and Romans are more “civilized” and “advanced” because we descended from them culturally; resulting in Victorians underestimating the capabilities of other ancient peoples.
Further, fast forward to say, just past WW2. the way paleontologists are looking for fossils is very different from what they do now. Now they care about every grain of sand on the rock encasing the fossil, because advanced techniques have let them gleam all sorts of info. We have found pigment cells that tell us what color a dinosaur’s feathery plumage was where 100 years ago we would have sanded away the evidence.
This applies when we do social sciences too. The way we measure poverty or GDP. For example, if all women started working full time as soon as their baby was weaned, GDP might go up because of a larger workforce. Is that necessarily better for society long term? Maybe that arrangement is right for some families, but not others? How can we capture the value to society created by stay at home moms?
That is what Wokeness reminds you to do. It doesn’t say that the studies you run on the population to determine where to aid people are worthless. It just reminds you to consider your perspective when you’re creating those studies, to include people with other perspectives when designing those studies, and to build safeguards to ensure your study doesn’t share your biases.
For example - facial recognition software has a much higher false positive rate with black faces than white ones. This is because facial recognition software often relies on deep learning which requires exposure to learn, and by the nature of our big tech companies they are mostly white and Asian.
If we don’t account for this, and implement facial recognition in our police force, that would be bad. Right?
So Wokeness reminds you, “you got a 99.99998 accuracy rate when testing it against your employees and photos from the Facebook profiles of them and their friends. Great job. Did you remember to test it against a statistically significant sample of Black and Latino people?”.
I hope that helps, @TGWATY. I would love to continue this conversation as well.