[ifsothen]

I see this response a lot. It's a cop out and deflection. Sure, it's always been political. But there are times when the politics of science has hued much more closely to the pursuit of truth than it currently does. It's not hard to see why when modern, powerful political movements say that "objectivity is a tool of white supremacy" or of the "patriarchy." Such positions would have been laughed out of the room in 1980 but now they are widely held within the academy.

[agentdrtran]

> modern, powerful political movements say that "objectivity is a tool of white supremacy" or of the "patriarchy."

The statement "objectivity is a tool of white supremacy" is generally used to refer to asserting confidently objective truth exists, which is more of a philosophical statement than a refutation of the scientific method like it's often framed.

The use of perceived objectivity to enforce linear thinking and silence people who react emotionally is why this comes up in the literature you're referring to. You wouldn't tell someone crying at the death of a loved one that crying isn't an objective response to the situation at hand, but this happens in many ways ("why are you so upset about X behavior from a colleague? -> you are behaving irrationally" rather than trying to understand why someone was upset, and knowing everyone reacts to things differently)

[the_omegist]

> to enforce linear thinking and silence people who react emotionally is why this comes up in the literature you're referring to. You wouldn't tell someone crying at the death of a loved one that crying isn't an objective response to the situation at hand, but this happens in many ways ("why are you so upset about X behavior from a colleague? -> you are behaving irrationally" rather than trying to understand why someone was upset, and knowing everyone reacts to things differently)

This is a topic on science and the example about someone crying over someone's death is a strange example. It's clear that if it wants to be called "science" then it has to have what you call linear (vs circular?) thinking. And yes there is an objective truth as far as what experience can measure.

Saying "everyone reacts to things differently" is a truism. Then what? As everyone reacts differently, the logical result is to IGNORE the emotional/irrational part of people when we deal about science/technology. As simple as that.

[agentdrtran]

> the logical result is to IGNORE the emotional/irrational part of people when we deal about science/technology. As simple as that.

I don't read it quite this like. “science” concepts still have emotional impacts on people, especially when many things outside "hard" science get framed as science — think about all the management advice that gets passed around as objective fact (that also changes every few years, oops!).

it's not arguing about the truth of how many electrons are in a carbon atom, it's your boss arguing that they have a "scientifically proven" management philosophy that is objective. would you believe someone if they said that? even if they showed you a study?

[kelseyfrog]

Methinks you need to read more papers from the 1980s. I keep Susan Bordo's The Cartesian Masculinization of Thought in my back pocket when people try this argument. It was published in 1986. Try again.

[ifsothen]

Yeah, the work stuff really took off during that decade. Probably a function of the 60s and 70s student terrorists/protestors becoming a significant portion of tenured professors finally.

[kelseyfrog]

So it both wouldn't fly in the 1980s and then also really took off in the 1980s? I guess we're just sorta freewheeling with whatever we want to say then? Cool.

[ifsothen]

I said in 1980 not the 1980s. And this stuff started as a minority viewpoint inside a small corner of the academy. It took many years to blossom into what it is now. People have always been writing stupid things.

[kelseyfrog]

Any months you want to throw in while you're at it? Day? Time even? Specific journals? Universities?

[Izkata]

> when the politics of science has hued much more closely to the

It's "hewed", not "hued"

[ifsothen]

Noted thanks.