Can’t youtube at work-can you give another non-video example, or describe what is happening in link you gave?
What in the Wide, Wide World Of Sports are you talking about? Are you perhaps mistakenly referring to some other poster in some other thread about some other topic?
I think Asimov pointed out why is it that it is not really circular and why is that science is getting it better.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Name one field in which political considerations have pushed science in the direction of incorrect conclusions that people knew better about a century ago.
This is an assumption not supported by any fact. It will lead to a crazy conclusion.
As I observed earlier, at any point in time the scientific consensus will always be that the current understanding is more correct than any previous time. So it’s pointless to focus on any direct response to your claim, since there will never be a way of determining in an objective manner that the current scientific understanding has taken a step back. That could only happen - if it ever does - if either the currently prevailing political climate has changed or scientific understanding has advanced to the point where it’s no longer possible for political influence to distort things.
That said, I think examples of science currently impacted by political considerations - to one extent or another - would be research into differences between genders or ethnic groups, and LBGT issues. In these areas, there are strongly disfavored conclusions and strongly disfavored conclusions, on political grounds. Science has been moving in the direction of the politically favored conclusions at around the same time that these conclusions have become politically favored. Now this could mean that the old conclusions were the ones which were politically-based, on the prevailing politics of that time. But it could also mean that the currently prevailing positions are being influenced by politics. No real way to know for sure, from an outside objective perspective. Time will tell. Though it might be a lot of time.
My initial comment was about theoretical possibilities. You’re asking for an example, so I’m giving you what’s possible.
This is a 100% sincere question. Can you give a more specific example of research into gender differences where you think the conclusions might be preordained to political favor? I’d like to do a literature search and see what is being concluded, gender differences is too broad to a real search as there are hundreds of thousands of hits.
How can something small understand something large? Therefore my brain is the size of the visible universe.
How can something large understand something small? Therefore my brain is the size of a neutrino.
Also quantum physics, as implied in the name, is not considered to be non-physical. The examples you gave are just of unintuitive physics, not magic.
An actual scientist working in that field would be able to be more specific. But if you look at what happened to Larry Summers et al, it seems pretty obvious that anyone whose research supports any sort of negative stereotype in any form whatsoever is running a big risk of some serious career consequences. So, humans being human and all, it’s inconceivable that this would not put a damper on the extent to which science, as researched and published by scientists, will support such positions.
Of course this is only relevant if there happen to be such positions out there which would be supported by science in the absence of political pressure. Hard to know for sure at this time.
I can describe what is not happening there: a mathematical proof of a contradiction.
What’s the viddy about, then?
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem
I disagree with what happened to Summers but has it put a damper on such research? I did a search for papers based on just one of the papers cited by Summers [1] and without even searching hard (i.e. within seconds) I found easily a few dozen papers after 2005 that try to extend that work (e.g. explaining the difference through hormonal differences). Then I did a wider search using some of the keywords in such papers and got thousands of hits. Doing a search prior in the 12 years prior to 2005 on the same keywords produces a similar number. I really don’t think researchers are as swayed by the political climate as you might think, but obviously I cannot see into the hearts and minds of all researchers. In fact, in my experience, researchers like to be the one that can buck the trend with solid proof as such findings tend to be like striking gold and are generally very good for a career.
[1] Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. studies, 10(1), 1.
You didn’t give any evidence of this assertion. I think you can’t. It’s simply not true.
The current issue of Scientific American is about The New Science of Sex and Gender. It contains articles that cite scientists changing the bounds of what is known. Just as an example, one article describes the research of a woman who work shows that there is not really such a thing as a male brain or female brain, but that each individual’s bain is a combination of male and female aspects. Another article shows research that transgender children present stereotypical cultural male and female roles until the age of 3.
I’m assuming that what you’re hearing is media reports of politicized science. That is not the same as science itself. Scientists do research and offer conclusions. The results may be politicized. Even so, saying that the research and conclusions are falsely drawn because of political issues is a gigantic slur rather than any semblance of the truth.
So you gave me an idea (and maybe this should be in its own thread so if this goes anywhere I’ll create one). I decided to see if anybody has done any research on the effects of the political climate on research. There wasn’t that much, which is a shame, it feels like untapped ground for some sociologists.
Anyway, I did find some papers discussing the ethics of self-censorship for dual-purpose research. I.e. research that can be both harmful and helpful. There were quite a few papers that discussed the dangers when measuring public opinion on controversial topics. There were a few papers on self-censorship in the press, and this is where I think the real issue lies. I don’t think it is so much that the research isn’t being done, but rather that the press covers certain types of research more so than others. They might do this either because of particular bias or because certain types of research get clicks/hits/view/subscriptions/etc. A good example is the “Food X is good for you” or “Food X is bad for you.” People love this kind of stories, especially when they results are unexpected like “Chocolate is good for you!” The problem though is often such findings are not presented scientifically, but what is the home viewer to do? I guess it kind of gets to the heart of this thread. If the news tells you “Chocolate is good for you!”, can you take that to the bank? Well, no, it ends up probably not, the research that had this finding has a lot of flaws, but there’s no real way for the viewer to know that. Even if they were inclined to go find and read the paper, they may not have the skills to assess the validity of it. Ultimately, for some subjects, this might give the impression that only certain types of research are being done.
So what does that mean? I don’t know, it really is what this thread should be about. How can science/research be conveyed to the public more openly and effectively?
One thing that would count is whether those other papers supported the conclusions or did not. There’s no issue in doing research in the field as long as you reach an acceptable conclusion. (Also, you need to compare the number of papers in general for the two time periods, as a control.)
There are a many areas in which you can make an impact which will be noted by your peers within the field and not attract negative attention outside of it.
I don’t know of any research as in peer reviewed studies. But I googled a bit and found some articles by informed-seeming people who think it’s an issue.
See e.g.
Is political correctness damaging science?
The Hazards of Politically Correct Research
Are boys’ brains different from girls’ brains? Scientists debate the question. (see in particular the first bullet point.)
That’s just the first page of google. There are others.
This is a bit afield, but FWIW, generally, the better class of media outlet will interview some experts in the field, who have themselves read the research and understand it, and can interpret it for the masses. Of course, they (the media) tend to do a very imperfect job of that, but then the media does a very imperfect job of everything. (Any time I’ve seen reporting on a story that I’m personally familiar with it’s been extremely flawed, and other people have reported similar.)
I don’t know what you’re trying to show with this.
So Scientific American has an issue out with a bunch of what appear to be very politically correct studies on gender issues (along with a cover editorial referring to “The assault on women’s health by Republican lawmakers in Washington”). OK.
What point are you making in the context of this discussion?
I only counted those that were extending the work, i.e. generally agreeing with it. Also, there are similar number of papers overall in both time periods although similar in this sense has a lot of error as it is very difficult to get a real estimate when you’re talking about so many hits. Overall, it doesn’t appear to me that researching this topic doesn’t appear to be taboo or a career killer. Keep in mind, what did in Summers wasn’t doing such research (it wasn’t even his own research), it was talking about it in public. He was then done in by a political correctness witch hunt, in my view anyway, and this was wrong. Very wrong. Could this have a chilling effect on keeping researchers from discussing their research if it is controversial? Yes. Definitely. And I’m not denying that there is some effect. I can tell you from my own field that right now if you want to increase your chances of getting a grant add the words “deep learning neural network” to the proposal even if there’s no actual benefit to using a deep learning neural network. It is ridiculous but buzz words work. It is an imperfect system, so I’m speaking in generalities, and in general I don’t think political climate has that large of an effect; however, ideally it should be zero (within reason, obviously all research should be ethical, have good merits, be of sound reasoning, etc).
The issue of how politics might affect the funding of certain areas of science is a different matter altogether and not something you can fault scientists for. That’s like blaming Renaissance artists for the proliferation of religious art and portraitures of nobles.
Research contradicting the current consensus is “politically correct studies”?
I am making the point that you are deliberately missing the point for apparently politically motivated reasons.
The issue at hand is not how much you can blame scientists. The issue is the extent to which confidence in current scientific consensus can be assumed to be correct and an advance over prior understanding. The influence of political sensitivities (or any other factor other than the ideal pursuit of scientific truth) impacts this, regardless of where the blame lies.
Research that seeks to change scientific understanding to better align with current politically correct ideology is “politically correct studies”.
Trying to, I guess. Never would have guessed that based on your cite, which - if anything - supports my claim.
I guess I have to bow to your superior knowledge of political correctness, because I never would have made the association.
Or, possibly, this assertion is not any more tenable than your previous ones.