It is an error to assume that science is pure, that all research is conducted in a social vacuum, and that “political” means party…

It is an error to assume that science is pure, that all research is conducted in a social vacuum, and that “political” means party politics. It is important not to fall into the agnotological trap of thinking that “science” can be divorced from the people conducting the research because all research is conducted with a human in the loop.

  • stravanasu@lemmy.caEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    Well, it’s a bit of a “no shit, Sherlock” moment. Increasing abandonment of science ethics has been denounced by scientists themselves since at least the 1960s. In fact it’s even worse; very basic scientific ideals have been abandoned. We can see it today in the frequent mention of “experts”. Scientific truth is not determined by an expert, it’s determined by experiment and logical reasoning. Appealing to “authorities” is what they did in the Middle Ages, before Galileo. We can also see it in the paper mills, citation indices, increasing number of retracted papers – all stuff that has been happening long before LLMs.

    Gibson, dean at Johns Hopkins, asked in 1964, among other things:

    (i) Do we, in our schools and colleges, foster the spirit of inquiry, of skepticism, of adventurous thinking, of acquiring experience and reflecting on it? Or do we place a premium on docility, giving major recognition to the ability of the student to return verbatim in examinations that which he has been fed?

    (ii) Do we regard with satisfaction the increasing deference being paid to scientific “authorities” in matters extending over the whole range of society’s activities? Do we take satisfaction in the growing hierarchy of scientists and in the credence given to the opinions of committees of “top-flight” scientists and engineers?

    (iii) Are we really disturbed by the increasing concentration of authority over scientific and technical matters in higher levels of national government? (iv) Are we content with the economic and social theories we have inherited? Are we attempting to synthesize our knowledge of science and technology into a consistent pattern with our use of their products in promoting the welfare of humanity? Are we dominated by dogma based on human authority in these areas?

    (vi) Do we really believe that science is the synthesis of human experience, gathered by all sincere individuals who practice Galileo’s methods, or do we look on it as a compromise of human opinions based on the dialectic skill or social and political status of those who hold the opinions?

    Feynman also denounced many similar aspects.