Действительно, увольнения просто за за взгляды пока что относительно редки, и спасибо партии за это, я преувеличил сказав что "полно". Чтобы уволили, надо как-то особенно вовремя выступить и разозлить толпу. Тем не менее, кроме увольнений есть же и другие механизмы давления. Начиная от не-продвижения по службе до прямого остракизма. Я на личном опыте знаю что такое быть единственным не-левым членом научно-исследовательского коллектива. Если бы не отменно толстая шкура мне бы это наверное очень неприятно. Один раз чуть до драки не дошло.
You are clearly exaggerating. As I said, I don't know any case when a professor was fired for their views.
Moreover, a lot of my colleagues are not on the left and voted for Republicans in the past, although I don't know any academic who voted for Trump (or at least acknowledged that). There is not much mechanism for pressuring tenured academics and I don't think any such mechanisms are related to their political views, at least not in science/engineering.
That said, I do feel that academia is a fairly conformist environment overall, not just in politics but in other aspects of the enterprise as well. I am not exactly sure why this is the case.
Как не знаете? Я ж вам только что дал свежую ссылку.
I don't know any academic who voted for Trump (or at least acknowledged that)
This alone speaks volumes, doesn't it? Сами-то как думаете - потому что полное единогласие или потому что знают, что съедят, если они признаются в таком грехе? И что, по-вашему, хуже?
He was a research scientist, that is not a tenure track position. Whether it is good or bad, research track appointments do not have the same job security.
>This alone speaks volumes, doesn't it? Сами-то как думаете - потому что полное единогласие или потому что знают, что съедят, если они признаются в таком грехе? И что, по-вашему, хуже?
It's an interesting question -- I don't know. On one hand, I partially agree with you, I do find this unanimity problematic. On the other, personally, I do not see how voting for Trump can be justified.
He was a research scientist, that is not a tenure track position.
Тогда всё в порядке, что-ли?
personally, I do not see how voting for Trump can be justified
Это не имеет значения. Хотя, понимать тут особенно нечего. Достаточно прийти к мнению, что его оппонент ещё хуже. Прямо скажем, Хиллари в этом смысле очень помогла. Будущий номинант дем партии тоже может помочь, хотя и по совершенно другим причинам/параметрам.
People in hard sciences are more likely to be atheist than religious, people in social sciences are more likely to be liberal than conservative. There are natural reasons for that, “знают, что съедят, если они признаются в таком грехе” is not one of them.
> There are natural reasons for that, “знают, что съедят, если они признаются в таком грехе” is not one of them.
I don't think this is the case, at least not in engineering/sciences. However I am bothered by the political homogeneity of academia, even though I share many of these views.
Science has its own values. They are not necessarily “left” but certainly “liberal”. Of course, personal political preferences (as well as personal religious beliefs) can be different, but, on average, there is some alignment. There is no secret plot by imaginary “cultural marxists” to brainwash people or to stifle dissent.
Among the general public, there is also some asymmetry in how they view science. From the recent Pew opinion poll:
Overall, a 63% majority of Americans say the scientific method generally produces sound conclusions. But, here too, Democrats have more confidence than Republicans. Seven-in-ten Democrats see the scientific method as generally sound. A smaller majority of Republicans (55%) say the same, while 44% believe the scientific method can be used to produce any conclusion the researcher wants.
> Science has its own values. They are not necessarily “left” but certainly “liberal”.
I am not sure what you mean by this. I don't see how the values of science itself relate to the political spectrum.
As far as the scientific method is concerned, there is no general agreement on what it is, even among scientists. I very much doubt the general public has a nuanced understanding of the scientific method and its limitations.
I don't see how the values of science itself relate to the political spectrum.
Scientists have the fundamental freedom to pursue different research directions and to question the authority. They organize themselves into scientific communities with defined rules that apply equally to everyone.
Liberty and equality are the tenets of liberalism.
I very much doubt the general public has a nuanced understanding of the scientific method
It's a pity that the general public doesn't understand how science works. For example, a scientific theory is not the same as "theory" in the colloquial sense. The lack of understanding about the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis is exploited by creationists who say "Evolution is just a theory."
> Scientists have the fundamental freedom to pursue different research directions and to question the authority. They organize themselves into scientific communities with defined rules that apply equally to everyone.
This is a fairly idealized view of science.
> For example, a scientific theory is not the same as "theory" in the colloquial sense.
These (what constitutes a scientific theory and when we can consider a theory to be "proven" ) are very subtle issues. It is not surprising that most people are confused.
True. Modern liberal democracies are also imperfect and yet distinctly different from dictatorships.
These are very subtle issues.
They can be explained to middle-school children. I believe it is more useful to understand the scientific method than to learn scientific facts. :
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. (Wikipedia)
Understanding that “cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation” is particularly useful in everyday life.
This definition of the scientific method is fine, of course. The problem is that it omits the critical element of trust. How many refinements of the hypotheses do we need before a certain assertion/theory can be considered to be "proven"? How can a member of the general public be qualified to assess this?
The problem is that much of the system is based on trust, the idea that scientists are working in good faith. And now this trust seems to be shaken.
The share of Americans saying colleges and universities have a negative effect has increased by 12 percentage points since 2012. The increase in negative views has come almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican. From 2015 to 2019, the share saying colleges have a negative effect on the country went from 37% to 59% among this group. Over that same period, the views of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic have remained largely stable and overwhelmingly positive.
The change in opinion among Republicans was caused by targeted propaganda efforts and is troublesome.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2019-08-16 07:57 pm (UTC)Действительно, увольнения просто за за взгляды пока что относительно редки, и спасибо партии за это, я преувеличил сказав что "полно". Чтобы уволили, надо как-то особенно вовремя выступить и разозлить толпу. Тем не менее, кроме увольнений есть же и другие механизмы давления. Начиная от не-продвижения по службе до прямого остракизма. Я на личном опыте знаю что такое быть единственным не-левым членом научно-исследовательского коллектива. Если бы не отменно толстая шкура мне бы это наверное очень неприятно. Один раз чуть до драки не дошло.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-16 08:15 pm (UTC)Moreover, a lot of my colleagues are not on the left and voted for Republicans in the past, although I don't know any academic who voted for Trump (or at least acknowledged that). There is not much mechanism for pressuring tenured academics and I don't think any such mechanisms are related to their political views, at least not in science/engineering.
That said, I do feel that academia is a fairly conformist environment overall, not just in politics but in other aspects of the enterprise as well. I am not exactly sure why this is the case.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-16 08:45 pm (UTC)I don't know any academic who voted for Trump (or at least acknowledged that)
This alone speaks volumes, doesn't it? Сами-то как думаете - потому что полное единогласие или потому что знают, что съедят, если они признаются в таком грехе? И что, по-вашему, хуже?
no subject
Date: 2019-08-16 09:00 pm (UTC)>This alone speaks volumes, doesn't it? Сами-то как думаете - потому что полное единогласие или потому что знают, что съедят, если они признаются в таком грехе? И что, по-вашему, хуже?
It's an interesting question -- I don't know. On one hand, I partially agree with you, I do find this unanimity problematic. On the other, personally, I do not see how voting for Trump can be justified.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-16 09:16 pm (UTC)Тогда всё в порядке, что-ли?
personally, I do not see how voting for Trump can be justified
Это не имеет значения. Хотя, понимать тут особенно нечего. Достаточно прийти к мнению, что его оппонент ещё хуже. Прямо скажем, Хиллари в этом смысле очень помогла. Будущий номинант дем партии тоже может помочь, хотя и по совершенно другим причинам/параметрам.
Ну, хорошо что хоть в чем-то согласились.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-16 09:26 pm (UTC)> Тогда всё в порядке, что-ли?
Still problematic, of course (assuming what they say there is true), but it is a different process.
> Ну, хорошо что хоть в чем-то согласились.
It happens sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-17 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-17 01:49 pm (UTC)I don't think this is the case, at least not in engineering/sciences. However I am bothered by the political homogeneity of academia, even though I share many of these views.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-17 04:13 pm (UTC)Among the general public, there is also some asymmetry in how they view science. From the recent Pew opinion poll:
Overall, a 63% majority of Americans say the scientific method generally produces sound conclusions. But, here too, Democrats have more confidence than Republicans. Seven-in-ten Democrats see the scientific method as generally sound. A smaller majority of Republicans (55%) say the same, while 44% believe the scientific method can be used to produce any conclusion the researcher wants.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-18 05:47 pm (UTC)I am not sure what you mean by this. I don't see how the values of science itself relate to the political spectrum.
As far as the scientific method is concerned, there is no general agreement on what it is, even among scientists. I very much doubt the general public has a nuanced understanding of the scientific method and its limitations.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-18 08:28 pm (UTC)Scientists have the fundamental freedom to pursue different research directions and to question the authority. They organize themselves into scientific communities with defined rules that apply equally to everyone.
Liberty and equality are the tenets of liberalism.
I very much doubt the general public has a nuanced understanding of the scientific method
It's a pity that the general public doesn't understand how science works. For example, a scientific theory is not the same as "theory" in the colloquial sense. The lack of understanding about the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis is exploited by creationists who say "Evolution is just a theory."
no subject
Date: 2019-08-18 11:27 pm (UTC)This is a fairly idealized view of science.
> For example, a scientific theory is not the same as "theory" in the colloquial sense.
These (what constitutes a scientific theory and when we can consider a theory to be "proven" ) are very subtle issues. It is not surprising that most people are confused.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 03:18 am (UTC)True. Modern liberal democracies are also imperfect and yet distinctly different from dictatorships.
These are very subtle issues.
They can be explained to middle-school children. I believe it is more useful to understand the scientific method than to learn scientific facts. :
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
(Wikipedia)
Understanding that “cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation” is particularly useful in everyday life.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 12:34 pm (UTC)This definition of the scientific method is fine, of course. The problem is that it omits the critical element of trust. How many refinements of the hypotheses do we need before a certain assertion/theory can be considered to be "proven"? How can a member of the general public be qualified to assess this?
The problem is that much of the system is based on trust, the idea that scientists are working in good faith. And now this trust seems to be shaken.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-20 01:00 pm (UTC)The share of Americans saying colleges and universities have a negative effect has increased by 12 percentage points since 2012. The increase in negative views has come almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican. From 2015 to 2019, the share saying colleges have a negative effect on the country went from 37% to 59% among this group. Over that same period, the views of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic have remained largely stable and overwhelmingly positive.
The change in opinion among Republicans was caused by targeted propaganda efforts and is troublesome.