UPDATE2: Glaciers, Gender, and Science - Now with more bickering!
- Thread starter Fallow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All the things you describe fall under another category, which is labelled apathetic, meaning to not care (colloquially "I don't give a shit"). Which is again not the same as atheism which is the denial of gods, hence why I very intentionally used the term 'active', so as not to confuse it with apathy.DoPo said:
You know, I considered myself atheist for a very long time until I found these things out, at which point my reaction was exactly the same as yours. I think I used the exact same reasoning too.
In my language, glaciers are male, Der Gletscher, the sun (Die Sonne), heat (Die Hitze), global warming (die globale Erderw?rmung), all these things that melt (the melting = Die Schmelze) glaciers are all female, coincidence? I think not.
Also why is there a huge dent with a pool of blood in my desk, and why is it 2 hours later than when I opened this thread?
Also why is there a huge dent with a pool of blood in my desk, and why is it 2 hours later than when I opened this thread?
I used scare quotes around that because it wasn't verbatim what they stated their goal was, but rather something on the lines of ...Cowabungaa said:
They are in fact wanting to include the perspectives of some people they consider marginalised when it comes to glacier science.
I already explained why that is a terrible terrible idea since those people have nothing scientific to contribute except feelings. And as I hope we can all agree, feelings are not objective and have nothing at all to do within science (unless it's a study on feelings ofcourse).
Excluding non-scientists from contributing non-scientific and non-quantifiable/non-qualifiable findings to a scientific study is not a blind spot, it's a requirement for any and every study that is supposed to be scientific.
Science does not work that way; there are no marginalised perspectives. There is what can be validated and quantified and published, and that's it. Numbers do not have an ethnic origin or background. There is no democracy to vote for which results can be repeated in a different lab.
If science worked the way you describe it we would still think the world is flat (Copernicus was marginalised), and we wouldn't have computers (Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing were both marginalised) or nuclear bombs (Oppenheimer was marginalised).
If by marginalised you mean pseudo-science like holistic medicine or parapsychology or whatever the anti-vaccine stuff is called, then I can point out that they are discarded on the previously described basis; the results are not repetible and the findings do not hold up to scrutiny.
Indeed it is, which is why it's so important to stick to the scientific fact.
They are saying the opposite, they are saying "let's muddy the waters and present some personal anecdotes" along with the actual data.
There is a whole field doing this called ethics on top of all the groups doing meta-science in their own fields. But like all science, it has to be done right, and not just repeat the personal biases of the authors.
It suggests the opposite, as scientists are exactly the right people to conduct science. One could say they are trained to be experts in the field.
Are you talking about science as a whole thing, or the results of climate studies? Your initial statement suggests the first option, but the latter suggests the second. Either way, this is a strawman in entirety, and pretty far drawn. I have said nothing against examining science, and this very discussion is a case in examining results.
This is what our disagreement then seems to boil down to. But what you say doesn't seem to be true. They definitely do have more to contribute than just feelings. The paper even gives examples of what kind of viewpoints are missed. And those viewpoints give data, they give perspectives that matter in terms of policy making for instance. That point is not about the science that's being done, but the information that scientists work with to produce the results they do. In their own words:Fallow said:
It's partially because of missing viewpoints like that we had the issue regarding loss-and-damages at the COP21. We need plural information like that to create properly fitting policies that is fair and workable for everyone involved. But we don't have that and that's indeed a problem. Especially in something so fickle and diverse as our climate and how we deal with that. Imagine you're a climate scientist. Does it sound like a good idea to you to completely ignore how local communities are affected by glaciers and the rapid change they're currently undergoing?
So yeah, in short; it's an input problem they're pointing out. A problem with the data scientists then have to process. They're not saying that a female Peruvian llama herder has to do climate science because she's a female Peruvian llama herder, which is what you seem to be fearing and what I agree should not be the case. What they're saying is that that female Peruvian llama herder can provide climate scientists with input that they're currently ignoring.
An important thing to remember as well is that climate science is not a 100% exact science. Climate science is an intermingling of fields that includes natural sciences and social sciences. That's why your objectivity point is moot. Sure it's not very useful when you try to figure out melting rates, that's something naturalistic you need hard, empirical data for. It's probably not something the aforementioned female Peruvian llama herder can help you with. But when you try to study the impact changes in glaciers have on the surrounding area that completely changes. That's something the female Peruvian llama herder can definitely help you with. And it's exactly that that the paper is talking about.
If what OP says is true then this is just nuts enough that I am now compelled to read the whole thing. I've already finished the first section and I'll update later when I've read the rest.
The first thing I've noticed is that it's not quite as insane as OP's news article makes it look. In fact, it's actually a reasonably well-written article, at least from what I've covered so far, and I would encourage everyone else here to also read it. In plain English, the four objectives the paper attempts to address are:
1.) Whether or not a male-dominated or otherwise gendered perspective biases the process of scientific research and dissemination of scientific knowledge in glaciology. Obviously this does not mean that there are teams of scientists somewhere who are interfering with research because they only study glaciers with ideal female forms, rather, it investigates the possibility of biased attitudes among researchers. Things like whether the scientific contributions of female researchers are being given as much consideration as those of male researchers, is it an equitable and friendly environment for women to work in, etc.
2.) Whether or not gendered perceptions influence social attitudes among outsiders towards the field of glaciology and among insiders towards other researchers, in particular when it comes to things like grant decisions
3.) Whether or not sexism in the history of glaciological research has negatively impacted the direction of research in the past
4.) Whether or not the social place of glaciers, on issues like their role in climate change, tourism, and mythology, has a gendered perspective. For instance, does the "endangered species narrative" surrounding glaciers (they must be saved from the danger of melting) have parallels to "damsel in distress" narratives and if so does this reflect a male-gendered perspective?
The paper both makes an effort to answer these questions and justify further research.
While I've never heard of "feminist political ecology" before, it makes sense to look into it now that I think about it. For instance, why is it that women are more likely than men to accept the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/women-more-likely-than-men/)
I looked into the issue further and found some interesting things on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_gender
The first thing I've noticed is that it's not quite as insane as OP's news article makes it look. In fact, it's actually a reasonably well-written article, at least from what I've covered so far, and I would encourage everyone else here to also read it. In plain English, the four objectives the paper attempts to address are:
1.) Whether or not a male-dominated or otherwise gendered perspective biases the process of scientific research and dissemination of scientific knowledge in glaciology. Obviously this does not mean that there are teams of scientists somewhere who are interfering with research because they only study glaciers with ideal female forms, rather, it investigates the possibility of biased attitudes among researchers. Things like whether the scientific contributions of female researchers are being given as much consideration as those of male researchers, is it an equitable and friendly environment for women to work in, etc.
2.) Whether or not gendered perceptions influence social attitudes among outsiders towards the field of glaciology and among insiders towards other researchers, in particular when it comes to things like grant decisions
3.) Whether or not sexism in the history of glaciological research has negatively impacted the direction of research in the past
4.) Whether or not the social place of glaciers, on issues like their role in climate change, tourism, and mythology, has a gendered perspective. For instance, does the "endangered species narrative" surrounding glaciers (they must be saved from the danger of melting) have parallels to "damsel in distress" narratives and if so does this reflect a male-gendered perspective?
The paper both makes an effort to answer these questions and justify further research.
While I've never heard of "feminist political ecology" before, it makes sense to look into it now that I think about it. For instance, why is it that women are more likely than men to accept the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/women-more-likely-than-men/)
I looked into the issue further and found some interesting things on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_gender
I'd like to see some of the feminist pre-colonial studiesRikuoAmero said:
"A bi-political analysis of bison migratory habits in relation to masculine smoke signals on the Chesapeake Ridge"
By Menstruating Fox, 1674
Published on the Chesapeake journal cave wall. Also available on cow hide by request.
thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
Worth every last penny for this sentence.
Worth every last penny for this sentence.
Seriously?
The $412,930 grant was for this man's body of work over the last 3 years. In fact, best I can tell it is actually a 5 year grant, so pretending this was a $412,930 paper is a ridiculous and pathetic lie.
And is it a silly waste of time article? I don't actually know, I don't have the credentials to make that call. What I do know is, having skimmed the article to get the barest minimum of context, that the OP massively misrepresents the article.
And lets be absolutely clear, the paper is about the history of geology and the potential flaws in our current understanding that history may have caused. It's pointing out flaws in the system of how we look at climate change, how we gather and evaluate data, and how we decide on what actions to take based on that data, all of which can be negatively impacted by prejudice and politics clearly present in the field of study.
It is also worth noting that the paper wasn't written by a academic feminist. It was written by a man who's area of expertise is the history and social influences on the environmental sciences. So, you know, he was doing the job for which the grant was given.
The $412,930 grant was for this man's body of work over the last 3 years. In fact, best I can tell it is actually a 5 year grant, so pretending this was a $412,930 paper is a ridiculous and pathetic lie.
And is it a silly waste of time article? I don't actually know, I don't have the credentials to make that call. What I do know is, having skimmed the article to get the barest minimum of context, that the OP massively misrepresents the article.
And lets be absolutely clear, the paper is about the history of geology and the potential flaws in our current understanding that history may have caused. It's pointing out flaws in the system of how we look at climate change, how we gather and evaluate data, and how we decide on what actions to take based on that data, all of which can be negatively impacted by prejudice and politics clearly present in the field of study.
It is also worth noting that the paper wasn't written by a academic feminist. It was written by a man who's area of expertise is the history and social influences on the environmental sciences. So, you know, he was doing the job for which the grant was given.
Then whatever source you found these things out from, has lied to you. What you seem to be describing is antitheism. This can fall under atheism but the two are not interchangeable - atheism is broadly the lack of belief in gods, it does not suggest or require any active part. Lack of belief through apathy falls perfectly within atheism.Fallow said:
So you entertain the notion that God may have made the glaciers, then.RikuoAmero said:
I'm actually going to guess not.
The funny thing is that many theists do look at us as distasteful for the same reason. You may have even noticed it.
And that's aside from how your comment doesn't actually match the paper.
And might I add, holy crap, if the person who wrote the blog on it had done their due diligence, this might not have even been an issue. It's generally a bad sign when your excerpt doesn't match your reaction. It's a worse one when you basically say "I don't know what I'm talking about."ThatOtherGirl said:
This is something else that might have been alleviated if the blogger in question had bothered to know what the hell they were talking about before getting outraged. Because OP's response seems based on that.
Why know what you're talking about when you can instead quickly pump out another fluff piece that'll enrage the internet hate brigade? It's really easy to exploit anti-feminists for money/page views, something the anti-feminists themselves have yet to figure out.Something Amyss said:
Let's be realistic: this is what the term atheism is becoming. Dictionary definitions are a lagging indicator of words which are codified by common use. And while I watch a couple dozen atheist YouTubers and listen to a bunch of atheist podcasts, their insistence is unlikely to make a long-term impact on the trend that atheist more and more means "anti-theist" and "agnostic" largely takes up the slot that formerly belonged to atheist. Or simply "non-believers."DoPo said:
I think the worst part, which is probably tied to this, is that people will so willingly take a layperson saying convenient bu totally false things as authority. I say "probably," but I suspect the response is a pavlovian one of "take that, feminism!" without any concern as to the accuracy of the blog post.shrekfan246 said:
The larger problem I end up having here is that it tends to have a rather anti-intellectual effect. The snarl word of "feminism" aside, rejecting any paper or concept because you don't understand it is unscientific, anti-intellectual, unhelpful, and anti-progress. This sort of bias is very similar to the reason we have anti-vaxxers and YECs.
Pretty much unrelated to the OP, but an interesting discussion nonetheless. And a problematic one.Something Amyss said:
Because if that were to be the new definition of atheism and agnosticism is still the on-the-fence position, how then do we denote the absence-of-belief position? Do we have to make an entirely new term for that? Or are simply those YouTubers wrong in how they call themselves?
It seems easier to go for the latter to be honest. We have three serviceable terms as is.
Also, as a side-note, I'm really happy that we're able to discuss all of this and the OP's actual topic in a reasonable and civil manner despite some reactionary responses. Nice going, folks.
100% agreed.Something Amyss said:
I'll admit I don't get what this paper is talking about, but my response to that is to admit that I don't understand it, not use it as some sort of "gotcha!" in a silly pitched war of political ideologies. In fact, using things people don't understand to spread false information seems to be the primary reason this sort of thing still happens to begin with.
Well if we're diving into this properly, theism doesn't equal being religious. You can be theistic without binding yourself to a religion. It was popular for a time in intellectual circles during the 17th/18th century. Some philosophers got into real trouble for it. You can also be religious without being theistic. The original incarnation of Buddhism was pretty much that.DoPo said:
But yeah my point was that for conversations like these it's easier to just stick to the original definitions.
Anyway, that's all off-topic.
If you haven't already, I'd suggest to give it a read. It's a rather simple paper in terms of content, for so far I've read it stays quite superficial as well. No surprise considering that it's an exploratory paper. It's niche, sure, but a little informative.shrekfan246 said:
But yeah, I like that way of thinking. Too many people use ignorance as an argument. You see it a lot in conspiracy theory arguments. Things like; "If they were really on the moon, how come there are no stars on the photos??" As such that's a viable thing to ask. Space exploration isn't the simplest thing around. But conspiracy theorists use not understanding it as an argument for the moon landing being fake. And that's nonsensical.