UPDATE2: Glaciers, Gender, and Science - Now with more bickering!

[Thaluikhain]

Which is then policymaking, not science. Science should never ever be the same as policymaking as it invalidates the entire scientific principle on neutrality. Science can and should influence policymaking, but policymaking must not be included in the scienctific study itself. This is the reason we don't trust the results of science where the author has inserted his/her own feelings or ideologies. This is not a point of debate, it's in every ethics course on science harking back to Platon.

In theory, yes, in practice not so much. Scientists are still human, they are subject to all the biases and imperfections anyone else is, even if they are supposed to try to avoid them.

Policy making might not (in theory() influence the study, but it will effect what studies are being made, what things are deemed important enough to study in the first place.

No climate scientist ignores the behaviour of the glacier.

Which behaviours? What are the ones that are most important and require the most study? Who decides that?

 

[Fallow]

In theory, yes, in practice not so much. Scientists are still human, they are subject to all the biases and imperfections anyone else is, even if they are supposed to try to avoid them.

Yes, this is a common quandary, and also the reason we still need a vibrant ethics field. Recalled papers are on the rise, cheating/fraud/impropriety is increasing (whether it's becase we are getting better at finding them or because they are getting more popular is uncertain). It's hard to forget that scientists are human, but all the conventions, guidelines and peer reviews do help a lot in reducing the prevalence.

Policy making might not (in theory() influence the study, but it will effect what studies are being made, what things are deemed important enough to study in the first place.

This is also very true, but the two processes are disparate. If policy makers will only invest in studies about toothpaste then that is what will be studied. But that does not mean that the policymakers are free to influence the conclusions of those studies, that must happen on a separate plane.

There are also very clear guidelines on what to consider, what to require, what to look for, and what to prevent when it comes to the influence an investor may have on the study. Any potential conflict of interest must also be disclosed in the paper, and that includes all sources of funding and extra engagements.

Which behaviours? What are the ones that are most important and require the most study? Who decides that?

I used a vague term because there is no specific behaviour required, but anything one could fit in a hypothesis. The distinction was made between first hand studies of the glacier itself and second hand accounts from the people possibly affected (only one of these can be quantified and validated).

 

[Cowabungaa]

Which is then policymaking, not science. Science should never ever be the same as policymaking as it invalidates the entire scientific principle on neutrality. Science can and should influence policymaking, but policymaking must not be included in the scienctific study itself. This is the reason we don't trust the results of science where the author has inserted his/her own feelings or ideologies. This is not a point of debate, it's in every ethics course on science harking back to Platon.

I'd like to start off my response to you by considering the following; we could try to get someone on the actual team involved. We have the actual email of one of the researches involved, Mark Carey. It's right there in the abstract. We could invite him to address your objections. Because while I try to engage you to the best of my abilities I'm still limited by being an interested party with a mild background in the philosophy of science. He could probably address your points and represent the paper in question a lot better than I can.

Anyway, moving on. This is a debate because you're not getting my point. Not to mention that you're plain wrong when it comes to recommending policies. Or to put it in more neutral terms; making normative claims about what should be done in a certain situation. That is 100% part of the realm of science. Simply the form of "If you have A and you want B, you have to do C to get B."

That's what I've been trying to get at for the last couple posts. The article is trying to say that C is incomplete and that that means we don't get to B well enough.

Again, "diverse" is not a thing in science. You can have statistically significant findings and statistically insignificant findings, but never "diverse" findings. Something is not "more" true because it came from an ethnic minority. The quote is just poorly motivated identity politics and these are anathema to real science. "Diverse" information is the same as noise, something even a grad student can tell you is (most of the time) a bad thing. Localised information? That is absolutely a bad thing as results are only deemed accurate if they can be repeated. If everyone has their own "local" information, that's not good at all. If the authors mean "accounting for local variations" that is so obvious as to be completely redundant, but then the entire quote is just pointless sophistry so it may well be the case.

This is absolutely, 100% false. Diversity is a thing in science. It's pretty much one of the basic principles in every damn social science! Take a look at any statistics or philosophy of science course on how to properly represent what you're studying. That, as such, is not as much the point of the article. But what I'm trying to say here is that it's absurd to say that diversity is not a thing in science.

Next to that, science involves way more than what you're describing here. Science is more than data collection. Science is deciding where to collect data, how to collect data, who is collecting the data, you name it. There are so many factors at play, so many choices, in creating scientific results that you're completely missing in your responses about this article. And that's a problem because that's what the paper is about! The paper acknowledges the reality that these decisions are not neutral, that those decisions don't exist in an idealized vacuum as you seemingly (note: only seemingly) make it out to be. There are factors at play and it's questioning those factors.

That's where diversity comes into play in the context of this paper. In the huuuuuge process that comes before you even dare to start with data gathering.

So what the paper sets out to do is way more broad than what you make it out to be and how you portray it. Take one look at the biographies of the researchers involved, supplied at the bottom of the article, and you see what it's about.

No, but then that was never the question. No climate scientist ignores the behaviour of the glacier. But all climate scientists should ignore the feelings of the affected, as that will only bias the results, something that we have seen already in the climate debate (ALOT OF IT) which has caused massive problems and slowed down the progress towards solving the issue. Do you remember those emails that were released? That is the result of feelings inhibiting science. Everyone gets screwed and the delay may well cause multiple deaths. (It's rarely that dramatic when feelings get in the way, but the climate is a life and death issue at some point.)

This shows how much you've missed the point of the article. The particular point we're discussing here (because there's multiple in the paper) is not at all about that part of glacial science. It's not about how they measure the speed of how glaciers melt. It's about what that melting does and how people deal with it. It has nothing to do with feelings, it's about human behavior. Behavior on how is dealt with, in this paper, changing glaciers.

Again, this paper is a lot more broad than what you make it out to be. I can't stress enough how you're missing its point.

You have two distinct parts of climate science, one in the natural sciences and one in the social sciences. The social sciences do not go out to study glaciers or natural phenomena and are thus not affected by this study. The natural sciences have requirements of objectivity and reproducible results. If your study is on the feelings of female Peruvian llama herders then by all means talk to as many as you can, but if you are trying to figure out why a glacier is moving or if the recent shift in trade-winds have increased the salinity in glacier topshifts, llama herders are not going to help.

This study is clearly aimed at studying phenomena such as glaciers and is thus aimed at the natural sciences part.

Again; you're missing the point. It's not about that part of glacial science at all. I wonder if you've even read the paper at this point. It even gives examples of the kind of projects that they're talking about and they have nothing to do with the kind of science you're talking about here. It even mentions how it doesn't just want to dump the information provided by the sources they propose in the mathematical processes you describe.

In the end, this is the crux of the matter and the point that you're missing:

"Alternative knowledges and practices are marginalized in this sustained masculinist atmosphere, restricting scientific questions asked, practitioners involved, methods employed, sites studied, and results achieved."

And especially those last few comments matter, what I tried to point out before. It's exactly what I've seen in philosophy of science. And if anything, this paper is a philosophy of science paper. To be precise, it questions the workings of glacial science. Questions that in certain regards are oddly comparable to the problems posed by Edmund Husserl that I'm currently studying a bit.

The paper, in the end, is studying the study of glaciers. And it finds it wanting. You can disagree with that, but that doesn't mean that the paper is rubbish. Philosophy of science, which goes way beyond ethics, is not rubbish. I would again like to recommend that we get the researcher involved and that you can present your problems to him.

Yes, if the impacts of interest are social. If they are geological, ecological, zoological, logical, or any number of other thingies thenit's a natural science study and the llama herders cannot contribute anything meaningful.

Which is not what they want the contribution of that llama herder for in the first place, so your point is completely moot. They don't want the llama herders to tell them melting rates, they want them to tell them how they deal with increased melting, changing irrigation patterns, etc.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

It seems that we're completely talking past each other, because the thing is that

You know damn well that we are talking about formal processes and methods.

is not the case. I haven't been talking about that and neither is the paper. It and I are talking about completely different parts of glaciology, and science as such, than you are. You're saying you don't deal with questions regarding which questions are asked, where studies are done, etc etc, but those are exactly the questions I and the paper have been dealing with. Because there's a lot of issues with that that ultimately lead to issues with the end results.

As for science's neutrality, this is a pipe dream and nonsensical. Science isn't neutral because the questions that decide how we do science aren't neutral, science in the real world isn't neutral. Stop pretending that it is, you're guarding a pie in the sky. What it can be, and what we've been aiming at through guidelines and protocols, is making it fair and balanced. But that's different from neutral. Now I wonder, what's your relation to science? It seems to me that you're working in one of the natural sciences. That'd explain a lot about why you're saying what you're saying.

Also, I see you haven't responded to my offer about including the actual writer of this paper so I've taken the liberty to email him myself. So he might join in at a later date. I'll keep an eye on my university mail account of what he says and I'll post in this topic what he says.

 

[Fallow]

snip

It seems that we're completely talking past each other, because the thing is that

You know damn well that we are talking about formal processes and methods.

is not the case. I haven't been talking about that and neither is the paper. It and I are talking about completely different parts of glaciology, and science as such, than you are. You're saying you don't deal with questions regarding which questions are asked, where studies are done, etc etc, but those are exactly the questions I and the paper have been dealing with. Because there's a lot of issues with that that ultimately lead to issues with the end results.

Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.
These are your words:

Or to put it in more neutral terms; making normative claims about what should be done in a certain situation.

What you are describing is a process.

The article is trying to say that C is incomplete and that that means we don't get to B well enough.

This is describing a process.

Science is deciding where to collect data, how to collect data, who is collecting the data, you name it.

This is a process.

There are so many factors at play, so many choices, in creating scientific results that you're completely missing in your responses about this article. And that's a problem because that's what the paper is about!

The paper is about processes and methods? (emphasis mine)

That's where diversity comes into play in the context of this paper. In the huuuuuge process that comes before you even dare to start with data gathering.

A process you say?

Behavior on how is dealt with, in this paper, changing glaciers.

Like, a guideline on *how* to do something? Isn't that called a formal process?

It even mentions how it doesn't just want to dump the information provided by the sources they propose in the mathematical processes you describe.

So they're unhappy with current formal processes?

"Alternative knowledges and practices are marginalized in this sustained masculinist atmosphere, restricting scientific questions asked, practitioners involved, methods employed, sites studied, and results achieved."

So we need new methods and processes for doing things?

To be precise, it questions the workings of glacial science.

Like, the current standard processes in glacial science?

The paper, in the end, is studying the study of glaciers.

A study? Isn't that a well-defined process and it's result given a certain input?
Interesting.

They don't want the llama herders to tell them melting rates, they want them to tell them how they deal with increased melting, changing irrigation patterns, etc.

They want to know the llama herder's process?


No, you are right, this is totally not about methods and processes, my bad.

As for science's neutrality, this is a pipe dream and nonsensical. Science isn't neutral because the questions that decide how we do science aren't neutral, science in the real world isn't neutral.
Stop pretending that it is, you're guarding a pie in the sky.

Yes, let's just give it up since we can't be perfect. Speaking of which, let's drop the justice system because we aren't catching all criminals, let's drop the healthcare system because not everyone survives everything. Do you have any other brilliant suggestions?

Ofcourse we aren't perfectly neutral, but we should do our best and work towards that goal. How else will we improve?

What it can be, and what we've been aiming at through guidelines and protocols, is making it fair and balanced.

You do realise that neutral and objective are interchangeable here? Which is a foundation of science and quite a few philosophies?

Also, I see you haven't responded to my offer about including the actual writer of this paper so I've taken the liberty to email him myself. So he might join in at a later date. I'll keep an eye on my university mail account of what he says and I'll post in this topic what he says.

I didn't want to do that as many of the problems I've listed here exist in many papers and won't change without a concerted effort, one I do not have the inclination to initiate (or rather, attempt). Additionally I have enough papers to review.

Furthermore, as this is a GG-related account, I will not be sharing the personal data I would need to in order to validate myself, and I try to be reasonably amorphous here. I'm not looking to repeat the adventures of Chris von Csefalvay.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

Fair enough, I was thinking of something else when you mentioned process. Namely the actual scientific process, e.a everything that follows when you've decided what to study, where, etc etc. The nitty gritty of it as it were.

Regardless, you're still not engaged with the same material as I and the paper am. As you said, and what I've mentioned before yes, you're not bothered with the aforementioned questions. But that's exactly what I and the paper are bothered by because how we answer those questions influence the results we end up with.

Speaking of discussing in good faith, why in God's name did you put bullshit links like that Powerline nonsense in your opening's point? Regardless of how you wanted this to resonate with this site's audience. You weren't even fair in the whole money thing, with the statement of it costing nearly half a million dollars being utter nonsense (because it was a five year grant [http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779] to use to use for work related to glaciology of which this paper is only a small part).

If you're so interested in discussing something in good faith, start out by representing this paper in good faith.

Yes, let's just give it up since we can't be perfect. Speaking of which, let's drop the justice system because we aren't catching all criminals, let's drop the healthcare system because not everyone survives everything. Do you have any other brilliant suggestions?

Ofcourse we aren't perfectly neutral, but we should do our best and work towards that goal. How else will we improve?

That's not the point. When it comes to that 'pre-process' as it were, all the decisions leading up to actually doing a study, neutrality simply doesn't come into play, not even imperfect neutrality. Deciding what you're going to study and how you're going to tackle it is never going to be neutral.

And most importantly; that's fine. By itself it's not a problem at all. But what is a problem is not owning up to that. And that's what a large part of the scientific community doesn't do at all. It doesn't owe up to the fact that it sits in certain paradigms, both socially and academically, that have quite a bit of influence in what science ultimately produces. This paper challenges some of those paradigms.

And before you mention it; no, that's not a buzzword. Paradigms are the most normal thing in the world when talking about philosophy of science.

I didn't want to do that as many of the problems I've listed here exist in many papers and won't change without a concerted effort, one I do not have the inclination to initiate (or rather, attempt). Additionally I have enough papers to review.

Furthermore, as this is a GG-related account, I will not be sharing the personal data I would need to in order to validate myself, and I try to be reasonably amorphous here. I'm not looking to repeat the adventures of Chris von Csefalvay.

I didn't ask you to review this paper, nor am I asking you to share personal information. In the mail I sent him I basically invited him to come here and discuss with us in this topic, and if he couldn't we both could exchange some messages as you have plenty of objections that are a lot more properly answered by him than me. I figured you were actually interested in learning and engaging in a dialogue about this stuff, not just laughing about something. I doubt GG will matter in any way, I doubt the guy even knows what it is. I mean, he studies glacier-society dynamics, climate change, natural disasters, water, mountaineering, and health. That's not even remotely in the realm of GG.

It's more than fair to give the guy who actually wrote this stuff a chance to explain himself. You throw all these objections my way but in the end I can hardly answer them. I didn't write this and only read it properly once. Anyway, we'll see how he responds to what I asked of him.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, "diverse" is not a thing in science. You can have statistically significant findings and statistically insignificant findings, but never "diverse" findings.

Yes you can. If a study aims to make a broad statement, it is better to have data ranging from as many relevant areas as possible.

For instance, say we have a study on rates of rainfall. If the study aims to quantify the rates of rainfall over an entire hemisphere, it is better to have data deriving from as many countries in that hemisphere as possible, rather than the majority of it deriving from a single one. That would be a benefit of "diverse" (or, if you prefer, "disparate") sources.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Okay, you want to be serious? Fine, it's not much fun though.

It's a package deal, so yes, it was the full price. The only argument would be that it's not the only thing that comes from that money (order now and get a steak knife for free eh?) as grant money isn't returned.

What? This is the most recent article from the man's body of work over the last 3 years. Including many articles and a book, and that is just an initial scan of a partial list of his work. The grant money has been used for years to produce a lot of other work.

The price of a part of a thing is not the same as the whole of a thing. No reasonable person can think that. When you buy a car that comes with 4 wheels you don't say "that one wheel cost $15,000!". If I buy a bag of 3 dozen screws for a dollar one screw is not a dollar, it is just under 3 cents.

There is no reasonable way you can claim the paper cost in excess of $400,000.

I do have the credentials, and it's actually far worse if we want to be serious, because this absolute shit article breaks many an ethical convention and guideline and fills out unsubstantiated claims with sophistry and fancy wording (which btw is also breaking several conventions and ethical guidelines). I did however feel that since this is not a community for science it would be more appropriate to post it tongue-in-cheek and get a similar effect.

Ok, let me be clear. I do have the credentials in a general sense, but I am not an environmental science historian. I do not assume that I am capable of instantly understanding a completely foreign field of study. But in general terms it seems fine to me.

And when you start your topic with deliberate misrepresentation to the point of basically lying don't be surprised when people call you on it. You absolutely destroyed any credibility you might have had by pretending the paper cost $412,930 and then pretending the paper is about gendering glaciers, lies you had to know were being told by the response articles in order shut down rational thought about the paper in order to push a political agenda. I do not believe you are this naive, or at least I hope you aren't.

So if you want to bring specific complaints against the paper for consideration then maybe we can talk. But I am not going to trust your overall judgement on this.

Except those weren't flaws but scientific requirements for the objectivity and neutrality and reproducibility of a study (something climate science is already in desperate need of). All of the problems you describe are absolutely real, and we've seen the consequences of those, but that has bugger all to do with the collection of hard data. The issues you describe come later in the process.

The paper was about those problems and their effects. That is what it is about. How can you have read the paper and not get this, it is clearly and plainly stated. This sort of thing is why I really doubt your ability to properly evaluate the paper.

Not sure what this addresses. The sex or ideology of the author is not relevant to the quality of the article.

Many people have been assuming it was written by an academic feminist. I was correcting that assumption. The ideology of the author is not relevant. His area of expertise is.

In addition, many people were imagining that this person was doing something ridiculous outside of the scope of what the money was provided for. He was not, he was working on exactly the problem he was hired to look at. Since the question of appropriate use of government funds has been raised (by you) the point matters.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Can't say I understand what this is. The only things I know about glaciers is that they're giant chunks of ice and that one of them famously 1v1d the Titanic. I don't see what feminism has to do with glaciers, but who knows? Dude may have a point in... whatever he's trying to say.

Now I'm going to go ahead and make a few assumptions after skimming lots of stuff. Because the word feminism is involved I'll go ahead and guess the paper is about the need for more female minds in the scientific process, which I agree with. It could also be about the marginalization of female researchers throughout history, which I can see happening. Or it could be about putting bikinis on glaciers. Sexy glaciers in provocative poses? I approve!

 

[Something Amyss]

I find it troubling that the defense to the fact that the study seems to be poorly understood is essentially that one has the scientific background to understand it and instead chose to misrepresent it and present false claims. That someone has the capacity to understand and would willfully misconstrue another seems worse than simply being swept up in outrage.

B-b-but, b-b-but if you simply describe yourself with unambiguous words what happens to labels?

Are you one of those antilableists?!

I know you're joking, but I just wanted to address this seriously for a moment.

Like, I actually don't tend to be bothered with labels. There are very few things I feel compelled to actually label myself as, and they're usually for utilitarian purposes. Besides, I've found in life that people are more than happy to label me, often whether the label realistically fits or not. Christ, I'm a dudebro and a PUA if people are to be believed.

Most of the time, I'm just...Amy. Nothing special about me except the fiery "666" on my forehead. Labels often lead to tribalism, us v them attitudes, asnd that's how we dehumanise people. I'm not big on tribalism, be it "Genesis does what NintenDONT" or sports teams or Coke or Pepsi. Politics especially confuse me, when someone would rather their team win, even if it means voting for someone they despise.

I tend to break things down more into "interesting" and "not interesting" or "fun/not fun."

Except those lousy Martians. Go back to where you came from!

Which is weirdly on-topic again, since this thread seems to largely be "ermagerd sexism/gender/whatever."

I preferred it when they used to call us all "Blasphemers" and "Heretics".

I prefer "Satan's Mistress." Granted, it may not be everyone's cup of sulfur....

But yeah, I blame YouTube for a lot of things. Like those damn Martians....

Yes you can. If a study aims to make a broad statement, it is better to have data ranging from as many relevant areas as possible.

There's also the bit where ignoring a whole gender or being more prone to dismiss may shut out findings. "Science" (in quotes because I kinda hate just referring to the blanket entity as though it's one conglomerate) is supposed to be repeatable, but if you dismiss an idea out of hand, especially because of its source, then you may not see it come to fruition no matter ho valid it is. And considering a paper with a male name will get more attention than a paper with a female one with identical credentials, we do have an issue where representation is a problem. Because it's clearly not about the ideas, the math, or the science now.

It's about this myth of STEM fields as a meritocracy, one which people will cleave to against the evidence they're supposed to value.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Can't say I understand what this is. The only things I know about glaciers is that they're giant chunks of ice and that one of them famously 1v1d the Titanic. I don't see what feminism has to do with glaciers, but who knows? Dude may have a point in... whatever he's trying to say.

Now I'm going to go ahead and make a few assumptions after skimming lots of stuff. Because the word feminism is involved I'll go ahead and guess the paper is about the need for more female minds in the scientific process, which I agree with. It could also be about the marginalization of female researchers throughout history, which I can see happening.

It is about both of those things as well as how the the perspective of people have been ignored in collecting what damages have been occurring because of melting glaciers and how ignoring those perspectives has likely lead to incorrect decisions on how to best solve the problems it is causing.

Or it could be about putting bikinis on glaciers. Sexy glaciers in provocative poses? I approve!

Now I am imagining the titanic plowing into a giant, bikini clad ice sculpture of Scarlett Johansson.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now I am imagining the titanic plowing into a giant, bikini clad ice sculpture of Scarlett Johansson.

I don't think that would be a PG-13 scene.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Now I am imagining the titanic plowing into a giant, bikini clad ice sculpture of Scarlett Johansson.

I don't think that would be a PG-13 scene.

See, this is for the porn parody.

 

[Something Amyss]

See, this is for the porn parody.

Come now. There's no way they're getting ScarJo for the porn.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Come now. There's no way they're getting ScarJo for the porn.

That's the beauty of it! They only need an ice sculpture of her, or more accurately a woman that looks surprisingly like her. The rest is all just practical effects using scale models.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's the beauty of it! They only need an ice sculpture of her, or more accurately a woman that looks surprisingly like her. The rest is all just practical effects using scale models.

Not to mention it would probably be melting.

 

[Don Incognito]

That's the beauty of it! They only need an ice sculpture of her, or more accurately a woman that looks surprisingly like her. The rest is all just practical effects using scale models.

Not to mention it would probably be melting.

Cost-saving measure, they'll be able to avoid using lube.

 

[Fallow]

Fair enough, I was thinking of something else when you mentioned process. Namely the actual scientific process, e.a everything that follows when you've decided what to study, where, etc etc. The nitty gritty of it as it were.

Fair dinkum.

Regardless, you're still not engaged with the same material as I and the paper am. As you said, and what I've mentioned before yes, you're not bothered with the aforementioned questions. But that's exactly what I and the paper are bothered by because how we answer those questions influence the results we end up with.

Now you're repeating the same thing again. It has been addressed. If you want to continue this debate, you will now need to a) answer the points you have ignored throughout my posts and b) find a new point to contend, preferrably one moving the discussion forward. If you want the answer to a question you've already asked, read my previous posts and pretend they're new.

Speaking of discussing in good faith, why in God's name did you put bullshit links like that Powerline nonsense in your opening's point?

Ahh, I see you're going for aggression now, interesting choice. I included the Powerline thingy as it might spark conversation. I haven't ever seen or heard of that site previously, I don't agree with the conclusion, but I thought it might be a branch someone would like to discuss since the Donald Trump stuff is selling like hot pockets. This is a forum after all. And it seems to have worked, eh?

Regardless of how you wanted this to resonate with this site's audience. You weren't even fair in the whole money thing, with the statement of it costing nearly half a million dollars being utter nonsense (because it was a five year grant [http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779] to use to use for work related to glaciology of which this paper is only a small part).

What is the lowest price this study was performed for? Was it $5,000? No. It was not. What is the cost of developing a new drug? Is it only the cost of the materials used? Is it only the cost of the employees bound to it's progression track? Does it include the cost of the administration? No, it's the whole cost from start to finish.

But you are probably correct in that I should have been very clear about this, and I was not. So, you are right and I apologise. I will amend the OP.

That's not the point. When it comes to that 'pre-process' as it were, all the decisions leading up to actually doing a study, neutrality simply doesn't come into play, not even imperfect neutrality. Deciding what you're going to study and how you're going to tackle it is never going to be neutral.

Oh it is. You have objective decisions to make in the pre-process part. If you already have the money you ask questions like:

• 
  * Where do we find glaciers?
  * What aspect of glaciers are we interested in?
  * Where is this aspect of glaciers most likely to be found in sufficient quantity/affect-size?
  * How can we get the most out of our money when doing this?
  * How many papers can we get out of this?
  * Can we piggytail this on other studies to lower costs / increase paper output?

Objective means going where the research will have the biggest chance of success. Subjective means going to Hawaii and downloading public glacier data instead.

Joking aside, consider this ethical conundrum:

Spoiler

You have a very important study to complete that could see powerful health benefits for every country with a well-developed health system. You need cerebro-spinal fluid from children (below 9 years). Quite a bit. Collecting that is going to hurt like bloody hell and has a small chance of causing damage. Do you a) take old samples from leukemia patients or b) fresh samples from healthy children? The study is bloody expensive so you only get one shot. If you take the old CSF your results will be a little wonky, but it just might work. If you fail, you won't get money for a second attempt and noone else will bother for quite a while since your study was inconclusive.

​

I'd say it's pretty important to be objective and neutral here. The pre-process is important from an ethical perspective and going "Hoopsy-daisy we can't be perfect so let's just roll with it" is not okay when the research has actual, real-life consequences in either direction.

And most importantly; that's fine. By itself it's not a problem at all. But what is a problem is not owning up to that. And that's what a large part of the scientific community doesn't do at all. It doesn't owe up to the fact that it sits in certain paradigms, both socially and academically, that have quite a bit of influence in what science ultimately produces. This paper challenges some of those paradigms.
And before you mention it; no, that's not a buzzword. Paradigms are the most normal thing in the world when talking about philosophy of science.

Paradigms are fine.
When talking about sophistry, here are a few examples. Anything that sounds similar to this will count:

The expropriation of narrative qua narrative may be regarded as the imposition of corporeality.

The sublimation of early modern textuality reinvents itself as the socialization of the tension between nature and history.

The expropriation of the gendered body fosters the authentication of the enigmatic.

I didn't ask you to review this paper, nor am I asking you to share personal information. In the mail I sent him I basically invited him to come here and discuss with us in this topic, and if he couldn't we both could exchange some messages as you have plenty of objections that are a lot more properly answered by him than me.

This part is fine. Going through the paper in detail is however going to be similar to reviewing it unless you wanted the conversation to flow into a more general "what is wrong with science".

It's more than fair to give the guy who actually wrote this stuff a chance to explain himself. You throw all these objections my way but in the end I can hardly answer them. I didn't write this and only read it properly once. Anyway, we'll see how he responds to what I asked of him.

Ofcourse. Were it my paper I would like to have the opportunity as well.

 

[Fallow]

Again, "diverse" is not a thing in science. You can have statistically significant findings and statistically insignificant findings, but never "diverse" findings.

Yes you can. If a study aims to make a broad statement, it is better to have data ranging from as many relevant areas as possible.

For instance, say we have a study on rates of rainfall. If the study aims to quantify the rates of rainfall over an entire hemisphere, it is better to have data deriving from as many countries in that hemisphere as possible, rather than the majority of it deriving from a single one. That would be a benefit of "diverse" (or, if you prefer, "disparate") sources.

There are two ways to look at this.

First, you are looking at a different layer. You can study the effects of diverse backgrounds at a grade school which will definitely include the word "diverse" multiple times, but that does not make the data itself diverse. Consider that you look at diverse pictures. They're all jpegs. Are they diverse because the images themselves are diverse?
The data format is always the same. That is what I mean when I say that the findings can never be diverse.

Second, a more thought-stimulating way to see it. What is diverse? In order to use the word you would have to take what is currently an amorphous and diffuse idea and make it concrete and quantifiable. Say that you have two precipitation rates in Brazil and Australia. When are they diverse? When they differ by 20%? When they differ by 44mm/year ? Can two rainfalls in Australia be diverse? Is it enough that 2 objects are diverse or must there be 3? Is it okay to only measure precipitation in deciding diversity or must location also be included? Is it a case of "delta-precipitation OR delta-location" or should it be "delta-precipitation AND delta-location"?

To get all these things you would need to set a clear quantifiable definition for diverse, which means that "your" diverse is no longer the same as everyone else's, thus not being diverse anymore (in the same definition that is).

 

[Fallow]

You absolutely destroyed any credibility you might have had by pretending the paper cost $412,930 and then pretending the paper is about gendering glaciers, lies you had to know were being told by the response articles in order shut down rational thought about the paper in order to push a political agenda.

Coming from you this is a compliment. Thank you.

So if you want to bring specific complaints against the paper for consideration then maybe we can talk. But I am not going to trust your overall judgement on this.

Hence why we have a thread? I'm not sure why you feel I created this specifically for you.