[0xDEAFBEAD]

>In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people.

Not a hard line. Scientific papers often comment on the best public policies. It matters a lot to taxpayers if institutional characteristics mean that these papers will inevitably recommend left-wing policies.

Why would right-wingers want their tax dollars going to institutes that will just recommend left-wing policies and call it "science", without the sort of rigorous debate that true science requires?

>Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.

If scholars are following the evidence where it leads, it should be easy to give examples of them recommending right-wing policies. How many recent examples can you give of this?

Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

He talks about the need for utter honesty, leaning over backwards.

"For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9377486-that-is-the-idea-th...

When people call themselves "scientists", yet neglect these principles, they aren't doing science. They're cloaking their ideology in the guise of science.

See this article for an in-depth investigation of how this happens in modern academia: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/woke-academics-are-riggi...

Just because it happens in a university building, and calls itself "science", doesn't make it true science. Any more than the fact that Scientology has "science" in the name makes it true science.

"Trust the Science" and "Nullius in verba" (motto of the Royal Society) have practically opposite meanings. One of them is actual science; the other is a cargo cult which grants itself unearned credibility through use of the term "science".

[0xDEAFBEAD]

https://xcancel.com/tracewoodgrains/status/19490731929429852...

https://xcancel.com/MattLutzPhi/status/1948726254456185312#m

[pastage]

You have to put what you are saying into context. Science is by definition conservative. It does not mean all of science is conservative or even just politicaly so.

The point is antiscience, and the right wingers need an enemy and they are turning to antiscience to do it. It is funny since you are citing FIRE I am pretty sure they will say similar stuff, I am guessing with words like "chilling effect" to describe parts the politics.

My view on the whole "it is woke" is that it is first of all an attempt of trying to construct a boogey man instead of having am honest debate. Most of what is called woke is actually just opinions. I have always seen the "it is woke" crowd as an attack on all of academia, that discussion can never be diverse enough to be anything that an out right attack.

Now we are slashing vital science projects that has nothing to do with woke, and people are arguing "science" should be blamed because someone was woke.

I am sure we think the same on many of these issues, but "Trust the science" is more or less what the Royal society said. In the end it does not matter if you are a scientist we as a people trust stories and legends more, creating monsters from thin air is a powerfull tool if you want people to trust you.