Scientists’ March on Washington

[Cosmic Janitor]

Rofl of course, why am i surprised? I came into this thread with a shred of hope for humanity, and now it's gone again. gg.

Ah I was wrong then, this will be the reason rally Mk. II.

[Wyrt]

I'm not understanding why sociology isn't a science.

[May90]

I'm not understanding why sociology isn't a science.

Feynman gave a few good reasons for it. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it isn't science, but many methods of how the mainstream sociology is done nowadays don't quite follow the scientific method. A lot of frivolous interpretation of facts, poor standards for papers to be accepted and so on.

Then again, coming from sciences like Physics and Math, I probably have unjustified expectations towards non-technical sciences - as did Feynman.

[Guran]

Someone who doesn't care if you understand them, only if they understand you.

Why? Scientists rarely care if their subjects of study understand them.

I believe you are mistaken here.
A lot of great scientist care if you(the public) understand them, that's why Stephen Hawking gives lectures, Neil DeGrasse Tyson goes on debates & talks a lot and in general, most scientists I know will gladly talk and explain their field of research to you. Because understanding and gaining knowledge about this universe we live in is quite literally their job. Remember, you're their public in this case, NOT their subject.

As for the subject of a matter being able to understand the scientist, there are two options:
- Either the understanding or not has no influence on the part of the subject is studied and the scientist is free, from a scientific point, to care or not if they do.
- Or the understanding DOES affect the study, at which point it becomes an extra parameter. If the scientist in question cares enough about this understanding, he may morally object to the study and refrain from participating.
Either way, the scientist is free to care about the understanding, even if the scientific study does not allow him to actually influence such understanding, and claiming they rarely care about the public understanding or their subjects is in my eyes an insinuation that scientist are almost all evil nazi movie doctors. To do so without any evidence to strengthen that argument I find a deplorable response.

[Spectral]

I wonder what percentage of people there will actually be scientists rather than the cheerleading sort that "Fucking Love Science" but would never even remotely consider doing the hard work to know more than an occasional factoid. I'm feel a bit culturally appropriated over here!

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't know what you meant to write here. The subject of study is nature. How is nature supposed to understand scientists? There's at least a few different ways to interpret this sensibly involving people and not nature, but I figure I'll just ask for clarification from the get go this time.

It's coming, I think, from the fact that even a strong communicator in science has to use some jargon and some people simply can't or won't be bothered to understand it. While having clarity is important, I can't be clear about the work I've done if I don't start out by getting a layperson on the same page with regard to some basic immunological terms like "cytokines"; this looks opaque to the uninterested (which I'd wager include Tota), so they shut down and claim that it's the scientist's fault for not communicating clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

Feynman gave a few good reasons for it. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it isn't science, but many methods of how the mainstream sociology is done nowadays don't quite follow the scientific method. A lot of frivolous interpretation of facts, poor standards for papers to be accepted and so on.

Then again, coming from sciences like Physics and Math, I probably have unjustified expectations towards non-technical sciences - as did Feynman.

My background is a lot squishier than physics or math and we still have standards of rigor in biological sciences that make J Sociology look like a fucking joke. Going to J Soc's homepage and browsing, it's easy to see how utterly risible the field is. The vast majority of the papers have no testable hypothesis. If you don't have a testable hypothesis, you're not doing science, you're just fitting your observations into your worldview.

- - - Updated - - -

"You're not looking at this from the republican voter's perspective. Donald J Drumpf is absolutely the great white hope. For a party of disaffected billionaires, Donald Drumpf is the ultimate example that they too can make it into the club. He's the first presidential candidate in forever that the average non-college educated white voter thinks is stupider than themselves. If that jackass can do it, so can they. He is the embodiment of their hopes and dreams."

Is this from the twitter account? If so, it reeks of why they're alienating people that care about science but aren't willing to hold up every last piece of leftists ideology. While I wouldn't call myself a Trump supporter (I'm an agnostic, we'll see) and I don't generally vote Republican (and didn't this year), I don't feel compelled to fly off into a tizzy of rage and I don't have the obvious anger they have at "stupid" "non-college educated white voter[s". I wonder if the same person has the same level of contempt for black high school dropouts? Somehow I'm guessing that they're not to blame for their lack of education, unlike those loathsome whites.

I'd also love to go toe-to-toe with this dumbfuck for intellectual and academic credentials.

[JohnBrown1917]

Trump doesn't give a shit about marches, it makes him double down on stuff.

Only showing his terrible qualities even more.

[Mad_Murdock]

I believe you are mistaken here.
A lot of great scientist care if you(the public) understand them, that's why Stephen Hawking gives lectures, Neil DeGrasse Tyson goes on debates & talks a lot and in general, most scientists I know will gladly talk and explain their field of research to you. Because understanding and gaining knowledge about this universe we live in is quite literally their job. Remember, you're their public in this case, NOT their subject.

This has been my limited experience with Scientist. They are kinda like kids in regards to when they discover or prove something, they just can't wait to share it and are disappointed when no one cares or understands them. Sure there are some snooty types that look down on us peasants, but has a whole they seem to really like to share and teach

[Spectral]

Have you met scientists that are anti-trump, and heard what they say?

Probably not, since you are generalizing based on what they study rather than the fact that they are people too.

Yes, since I live in a very liberal city, used to be a scientist, and the majority of my local friends are either scientists or in science-adjacent fields. While I sympathize with and share concerns on actual scientific issues (how's NIH funding going to go, what will the FDA look like, climate policy, etc.), the rest of their critiques are as stock-standard and silly as those of anyone else. Scientists are clever, but not imbued with special powers of rationality outside their domains of study, particularly when it comes to issues that are almost purely tribal like what we see in modern politics.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been my limited experience with Scientist. They are kinda like kids in regards to when they discover or prove something, they just can't wait to share it and are disappointed when no one cares or understands them. Sure there are some snooty types that look down on us peasants, but has a whole they seem to really like to share and teach

It was actually one of the few things I liked about doing science was talking to non-experts about it. I basically hated doing research, but talking to people about research is a lot of fun. I'd light up enough that friends and family would be surprised when I'd tell them that I'd rather go do something else for a living.

It generally takes that sort of evangelical enthusiasm for science to be willing to sign up for the decade of education and low pay in the first place.

[Adolecent]

So the scientists are finally coming out of their damned ivory towers where they've spent their entire lives hidden?

Good.

You should have educated yourself instead of trying to destroy the world becourse you're mad you don't understand. Scientific information was always public.

[Spectral]

So the scientists are finally coming out of their damned ivory towers where they've spent their entire lives hidden?

Good.

So silly. The majority of scientists are working people - lab techs, grad students, post docs, industry researchers that don't make all that much money. The only extent to which they're "hidden" is the extent to which they're in labs, working harder than you.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I wonder what percentage of people there will actually be scientists rather than the cheerleading sort that "Fucking Love Science" but would never even remotely consider doing the hard work to know more than an occasional factoid. I'm feel a bit culturally appropriated over here!

My guess is that the intersection of the attending crowd and people buying every rubbish from solar roadways over hyperloops to cold fusion under their kitchen sink with a "Hell yeah! Science is awesome!" will be in the 70+ percentile range.. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people are enthusiastic about science and try to defend it. But I always cringe a bit when they fall for obvious lies or half-truths build on misconceptions, because they are really eager about the result, but not the way of getting there.

In regards to the side topic of social sciences: I think there is defnitely some knowledge to be gained by researching any kind of human interaction in the braoder sense. But the issue seems to be mostly with the presentation of the conclusion and often lacking adressing of the complexity of the systems. Unlike most research materials in the classical sciences an individual of the element human is a function influenced by everything that happened during it's existence. An atom on the other hand usually has a rather narrowly defined state and the result of many atoms is therefore easier to analyse than that of humans. Taking single reasearch results as gospel in that regard is wantonly negligent imho. But that is not just a problem of social sciences alone, it has a lot to do with the reporting on these findings. Often the actual study isn't even that awful, just the reporting is atrocious. That is a problem many sciences suffer from though, as most science reporters are hands down just shit. Though there is defnitely a way lower standard than in other fields and they would do good in improving it..

[Deleted]

I think most working/middle class are for science but if they group up with the feminazis and go against us just because they initially lose some globalist money then they will become part of the enemy.

[Dug]

I think most working/middle class are for science but if they group up with the feminazis and go against us just because they initially lose some globalist money then they will become part of the enemy.

Then that's on the working/middle class for being so petty. They're not actually "for science" if they can't distinguish between the two groups because of their own bias. And scientists aren't protesting losing money they're protesting the embracing of willful ignorance.

[Adam Jensen]

What are these marches hoping to accomplish?

1. Doing something to mitigate global warming
2. Pushing alternative energies to fossil fuels before we, you know, run out.
3. Getting creationism the FUCK out of biology classes
4. Keeping government scientists from being gagged and unable to talk to the media about findings the administration doesn't like.

[Thepersona]

why willful imbecility is so common?
science is apolitical per se. it's a form to reach and then spread knowledge. If you're in a group that despises that, then you're the problem

[Adam Jensen]

Because stuffing your protests crowds with non scientists is hilarious. Why not just add BLM since it doesn't matter who's there? Everyone is a scientist now.

Just because I am not a scientist, doesn't mean I don't appreciate science. I say that as I type on an intricate device of electron pathways so I can send a message across the world that thousands of people globally can access . . . because of science.

Science is important to me because it is the driving force of human progress.

[Deleted]

Even the scientists have lost it now >.<

People and their pointless marches....

[Crissi]

Even the scientists have lost it now >.<

People and their pointless marches....

Don't gag order their research, and they wont have cause to march. simple. Gag ordering is against the very principle of knowledge exchange that is essential for science.

[Adam Jensen]

Oh hush. Calling people stupid for not voting how you want is the height of political prigressiveness.

Voting for Trump was stupid. End of story. We've known from day one that he's a pathological liar. We've known from day one that he's a narcissist. We've known from day one that he makes up facts just to suit his agenda. This has been blatant since the first time he ran for office four fucking years ago.

And yet people still thought he was qualified to be president! I'm sorry, but that's fucking stupid when you ignore the goddamn evidence in front of your face that maybe, just maybe, voting for a man with the temperament of a five year old bully, might be a bad fucking idea!

It's not like Trump was some obscure man who no one knew. He's been famous for decades. People have known his personality to be like that for decades. And yet, people still thought he's qualified to be president?

They're either delusional, or stupid.

Does this mean I want some "dictatorship" where people only vote for progressives? No! Because I wouldn't be ranting if someone normal like Kasich or Bush had won. Or if Romney had won. People whom I disagree with, but I can at least fucking respect.

Boggles my mind that anyone thought Trump was worthy of being on the ballot.

And if you're insulted because you voted for Trump and I'm calling you stupid? Too bad. Stop being a snowflake, being offended has never hurt anyone.

[Elim Garak]

Voting for Trump was stupid. End of story. We've known from day one that he's a pathological liar.

That's like every president in every country in the entire history of presidency.
The difference with Trump - he's honest about it That's why he got the votes. He just went - "look at me I'm a pathological liar and I don't give a fuck" - and people were like - "At least he's honest about it, unlike certain other candidate"