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

[Terminal Blue]

Your error is you seem uncomfortable accepting that knowledge is situated in particular places and contexts.

If you actually believed that the utility of knowledge was purely contextual, you would be a hypocrite for describing my disagreement as an "error".

You don't get that values and morals related to textual interpretation vary across cultures.

No. I get that. That's incredibly obvious, it's not something I think anyone disagrees on - which makes it baffling that I assume you included it to try and be funny. Also, related how? "Related" is a very vague term, in this context.

Your interpretation exists within and facilitates systems of colonial expansion, capitalist resource extraction, and the subjugation of my indigenous peoples.

Yes, and?

I didn't say the article fails to include the perspective of indigenous people like me. Your interpretation of the article is what I was criticizing.

Well, since I'm a critical theorist and conceptual historian rather than a feminist glaciologist, I have absolutely no problem stating that your attempt at a satirical argument is a failure because appealing to the situated character of "multiple knowledges" does not constitute, in and of itself, a meaningful appeal to an ethic of equal power aimed at breaking down the hierarchical arrangement of those knowledges. As you've demonstrated yourself by claiming I am in "error", the concept for multiple knowledges is implicitly hierarchical because it produces the capacity for judgement or discrimination which create an immanent (or "critical") irreconcilability between competing claims. Now, you can point out that the reasons I can dismiss your argument as worthless are based in knowledge practices which are implicated in colonial domination, I would in fact agree with that. However, you've failed to provide a meaningful alternative, or indeed to give space to the possibility of there even being an alternative.

If you could provide the possibility of such a thing, people would be beating down your door to try and publish your book. Have you noticed how they aren't doing that?

It's also full of pretentious horseshit about glacier rape and scientists accepting that the smell of grease moving glaciers is valid in its context.

The phrase "glacier rape" doesn't appear in the article. You made that one up.

Also, it's not asking scientists to "accept" anything. That was literally in the quote you just threw at me.

The goal is neither to force glaciologists to believe that glaciers listen nor to make indigenous peoples put their full faith in scientists' mathematical equations and computer-generated models (devoid of meaning, spirituality, and reciprocal human-nature relationships).

If anything, it is asking scientists to be respectful of things they don't accept.

Again. Reading comprehension.

You didn't even consider my spirituality in your interpretation of the text. I certainly cannot let that go.

Why did you just equate spirituality with religious belief?

Wait now you're correcting me for incorrectly interpreting the source material?

Actually no. I'm correcting you for not being sufficiently knowledgeable about the source material (specifically, about the field of academic writing in which it resides) to be able to parody it effectively.

That said, while we are on the subject the "interpretations" you've offered so far are kind of bollocks because it's very clear you didn't read the text closely or accurately enough. See above.

You write what you want them to think, not what they wrote in their own document.

No. I wrote what the words mean, although obviously I simplified them and sometimes I used an illustrative rather than a literal meaning. I occasionally added my own conversational touches because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of having to explain fairly basic terms which, frankly, you could look up in an academic dictionary, not because I was "writing what I wanted them to think".

It's a very, very easy article to understand, to the point where (as I pointed out) I think it's actually kind of crude and simplistic.

What you're trying to do is literally penetrate the text with a masculinist penis

What the fuck is a "masculinist penis".

If you'd used the term phallus, it might have been a bit more on the nose, because "phallus" is actually used in some genres of feminist literature (albeit not this one, so it would still be a shit joke) and has a well recognized double meaning. Again, you're not knowledgeable enough to take the piss effectively. Accept that and move on.

 

[Silvanus]

The scientific process regards the formal steps within research and how to do it all properly, it does not concern itself with specific contents.

Well, sure. But scientists will concern themselves with all relevant data, and if the study has a broad spec, that will necessarily include data from all relevant areas.

A standard must be widely adopted. If an entire field would adopt the same measurement cutoffs, that would be a standard, but we are talking about each individual study using their own cutoffs which does not qualify as a standard. Statistical significance is used across multiple fields.

Studies have different briefs, so of course they will have different cut-offs. Similarly, what constitutes relevant data will depend entirely on the study's intent.

The fact that something cannot be uniformly applied across a field does not mean it doesn't exist as a concept in science. That's absurd. The same is true of relevance itself.

Is it preferable to have more room for error? I think you've gone from arguing that it's preferable to use multiple sources to that it's possible to use multiple sources or that sometimes it's required, two points which I do not contend.

Firstly, I did not say it is necessarily preferable. I prefaced that statement, saying it applies when the study has a broad statement to make; it should cover as many relevant areas as possible. Otherwise, its conclusion is not going to be as valid across the entire scope of the study.

My point was that it is preferable to have multiple data sources in certain conditions. Which, rather indisputably, it is. You did rather contend that, saying that "diversity" does not even exist as a concept within science.

 

[THM]

Honestly, when I first heard about this 'study' my first thought was "You have to be fucking kidding me."

The second was "I am in the wrong business."

But kudos to the author for getting half a million bucks out of academia for it.

 

[Fallow]

Well, sure. But scientists will concern themselves with all relevant data, and if the study has a broad spec, that will necessarily include data from all relevant areas.

Which has nothing at all to do with what I originally said and what you contended.

Studies have different briefs, so of course they will have different cut-offs. Similarly, what constitutes relevant data will depend entirely on the study's intent.

The fact that something cannot be uniformly applied across a field does not mean it doesn't exist as a concept in science. That's absurd. The same is true of relevance itself.

I thought I was pretty clear that the discussion regarded the scientific process, but you have now once again expanded the scope to all of science.

Firstly, I did not say it is necessarily preferable. I prefaced that statement, saying it applies when the study has a broad statement to make; it should cover as many relevant areas as possible. Otherwise, its conclusion is not going to be as valid across the entire scope of the study.

My point was that it is preferable to have multiple data sources in certain conditions. Which, rather indisputably, it is. You did rather contend that, saying that "diversity" does not even exist as a concept within science.

Which has nothing to do with preference and all to do with necessity. You don't get a colonoscopy because it's preferable to having a wide open Friday, you get it because you feel it necessary to rule out cancer.

Also, again with the all of science.

I have a distinct feeling we are in agreement but not reading each other's posts as they were intended to.

 

[Silvanus]

Which has nothing at all to do with what I originally said and what you contended.

Uhrm, yes it does. Diversity exists as a concept in science. If covering a broad area, you'll want data sourced from all relevant areas.

I thought I was pretty clear that the discussion regarded the scientific process, but you have now once again expanded the scope to all of science.

You were pretty clear in the last post. Initially, you referred only to "science". If those goalposts have moved, fine, I don't mind at all. The scientific method concerns itself only with the paradigms of science.

Mind you, if you're talking only about the scientific method, then the original criticism of this glaciology study wouldn't stand. The study is free to investigate aspects outside the scientific method itself.

Which has nothing to do with preference and all to do with necessity. You don't get a colonoscopy because it's preferable to having a wide open Friday, you get it because you feel it necessary to rule out cancer.

Eh, validity is a sliding scale. A study looking at 9/10 necessary areas will still be quite likely to be on the money. 10/10 there is preferable.

 

[Pseudonym]

It's also full of pretentious horseshit about glacier rape and scientists accepting that the smell of grease moving glaciers is valid in its context.

The phrase "glacier rape" doesn't appear in the article. You made that one up.

Also, it's not asking scientists to "accept" anything. That was literally in the quote you just threw at me.

The goal is neither to force glaciologists to believe that glaciers listen nor to make indigenous peoples put their full faith in scientists' mathematical equations and computer-generated models (devoid of meaning, spirituality, and reciprocal human-nature relationships).

If anything, it is asking scientists to be respectful of things they don't accept.

Again. Reading comprehension.

There are sentences before and after the part you quoted which tell me something else. The full quote Arctic Werewolf placed is this:

Conscious of this position, the feminist glaciology framework asks that researchers accept a plurality of knowledges and recognize embedded systems of domination. The goal is neither to force glaciologists to believe that glaciers listen nor to make indigenous peoples put their full faith in scientists' mathematical equations and computer-generated models (devoid of meaning, spirituality, and reciprocal human-nature relationships). Rather, the goal is to understand that environmental knowledge is always based in systems of power discrepancies and unequal social relations, and overcoming these disparities requires accepting that multiple knowledges exist and are valid within their own contexts.

It literally asks researchers to accept a plurality of knowledges. And while scientists, according to this, need not accept the opinions of certain indiginous people, they do seem to say that scientists need to accept that multiple knowledges exist and are valid within their own context. Well, it doesn't say precisely that either, but the language certainly suggests that. When you say that x can be accepted the word 'accepted' already more or less implies that x is true. And they do say that to overcome disparities and unequal social relations we need to accept the existance and validity of multiple knowledges. So this can certainly be read as saying that not accepting the existance and validity of multiple knowledges is both false and leads to more inequality. In fact, calling something knowledge or 'a knowledge' as this article does, and saying it is valid (which is a categorical error, reasoning is valid, knowledge or belief can only be true) already has clear normative implications. The authors could have just used words like 'belief' or 'opinion' or 'belief structure' or something else perhaps. By choosing the word knowledge they deliberately put in the normative implications of that word.

I somewhat agree with your first point. The word rape doesn't appear in the article. There is some talk of sexuality and glaciers in certain cultures and some talk of sexual harrassment of female scientists but nothing about glacier rape. That is a bit exaggerated. I'm guessing he was referring to this though:

Structures of power and domination also stimulated the first large-scale ice core drilling projects ? these archetypal masculinist projects to literally penetrate glaciers and extract for measurement and exploitation the ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

Which doesn't say that glaciers are being raped though can be read as an innuendo to that effect. In fact, when you look at the writing, it seems that making that innuendo was the only reason to include this. There are a couple of clear concise sentences in the paragraph and the lump of words after the hyphen certainly wasn't one of them.

Why didn't this sentence just cut off after the word projects? What does 'these' refer to? Why is the hyphen and not just a point? Why does the part after the hyphen only contain a subject about which nothing is said? It does seem like that part of the sentence is grammatically shoddy, adds little of interest and was included just to make that innuendo. A shame, because the point made in the rest of the paragraph, that certain scientific projects started out as militairy projects with relatively little intrinsic scientific interest is a good point.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It literally asks researchers to accept a plurality of knowledges.

And?

A plurality of knowledges is not, as is being alleged, a plurality of truths, hence the specific dismissal of the possible misunderstanding that this is the case.

And while scientists, according to this, need not accept the opinions of certain indiginous people, they do seem to say that scientists need to accept that multiple knowledges exist and are valid within their own context.

Again, true. However, once again, knowledge does not equal truth.

It's also worth noting that the article also does not specify the scope of the contexts in which these multiple knowledges may be considered valid. Thus, I really think people are trying to read too much into it, and indeed to allege things which are specifically refuted in the text. Multiple knowledges does not mean that those knowledges must be accorded equal merit in some grand ontological sense, it is perfectly reasonable and empirically correct to point out that there are people on this planet who do think glaciers listen to people or are offended by certain smells, and that this mode of understanding is contextually accurate within the worldview of those people. However, the context in which that can be taken as "valid" may in fact be very small, possibly confined to a single community or a specific ritual or mythological setting.

I have stated repeatedly that I find the wording of the article and its use of postcolonial theory problematic, simplistic and unhelpful. I agree that in terms of general tone there are a lot of problems with the kind of language being employed, but reading tone is highly interpretive. It's better, I believe, to go with what is actually being said rather than inventing some fictious position which it might sound like the author has an affective attachment to.

When you say that x can be accepted the word 'accepted' already more or less implies that x is true.

I think if you're taking a "multiple knowledges" approach it very specifically means that acceptance is not a claim to truth, otherwise the whole concept of multiple knowledges would not make sense, right? This is actually the problem I have with it, I think when you dig below the surface it actually doesn't make sense because it doesn't resolve the problem of competing truth claims, it merely relies on a limitless capacity to defer the question of the truth which I ultimately don't think is possible in the actual "field" in which research takes place, and where we are constantly called upon to make assumptions and judgements about the truth whether we want to or not.

Hence, the approach being advocated with regards to the inclusion of "indigenous" knowledges or "folk glaciology" is actually, by necessity, quite shallow and superficial and not nearly as radical as I think some people would like to believe.

And they do say that to overcome disparities and unequal social relations we need to accept the existance and validity of multiple knowledges.

Yeah, again, beyond the fact that I personally think that's impossible and any attempt to implement it is going to be shallow, superficial and patronizing, I don't really see the problem.

So this can certainly be read as saying that not accepting the existance and validity of multiple knowledges is both false and leads to more inequality.

"False", no. We've gone over why a multiple knowledges approach doesn't really lend itself to discussions of "truth" with a capital T.

"Leads to more inequality", yes. I think that is very definitely not just something which can be read but something which is explicit, and generally speaking I don't really see what the problem with that is. Expecting scientists to pay lip service to the worldviews and traditions of people who actually live around glaciers doesn't strike me as placing a huge burden on scientists and probably is quite a nice gesture. I'm not so sure it would actually do much to confront or challenge prevailing inequalities, but again I think this is a failure of the article itself in that it doesn't adequately unpack the metric of "equality" it is using. "Equality", after all, is a concept with a particular place in the history of Western thought.

This is something which more serious postcolonial theorists will and have tackled directly, but as mentioned I don't think the article is particularly theoretically nuanced.

In fact, calling something knowledge or 'a knowledge' as this article does, and saying it is valid (which is a categorical error, reasoning is valid, knowledge or belief can only be true) already has clear normative implications.

"Knowledge" can refer to any structure or arrangement of thoughts or concepts. Why on earth would you take this arbitrary position that the only form of judgement it's possible to apply to those structures is whether they are "true" or "false", or indeed that the judgement or discernment of truth or falsehood is necessary at all.

Which doesn't say that glaciers are being raped though can be read as an innuendo to that effect.

Yeah, I'm kind of with you there. It's unnecessary, and reeks of vague psychoanalytic implications. As I said, I don't think it's a good article. But I think we have to beware of reading too much into tone and I'm certainly not down with this hyper-exaggerated outrage, because actually the implications seem remarkably tame.

 

[Fallow]

Update:

It looks like Jerry Coyne (Chicago U), a professor in Ecology and Evolution has added his thoughts on the matter [https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/postmodern-glacier-professor-defends-his-study-says-it-was-misunderstood-it-wasnt/]; here are two excerpts:

Spoiler: obtuse wording and complex phrases

It?s horribly written, in the kind of obscurantist, ideology-packed prose that we?re used to from postmodernism. And it says the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. These people need to learn how to write.

Spoiler: anti-science, objectively bad research-damaging approaches

It?s actually anti-science, for it repeatedly points out the problems with so-called objective Western science, namely its refusal to incorporate the voices of marginalized people, but, more important, to accept ?other ways of knowing? about glaciers. It turns out that these ?other ways of knowing? are simply subjective and emotional views incorporated in human narratives, art, and literature. These are not ?ways of knowing? that will advance the field. Science is repeatedly denigrated, and, in fact, I?m surprised that this stuff was funded by the National Science Foundation. Has it become the National Science and Other Ways of Knowing Foundation?

I'd say read the whole thing, it's a hoot and a half and you will have a few good laughs too.

 

[Fallow]

Uhrm, yes it does. Diversity exists as a concept in science. If covering a broad area, you'll want data sourced from all relevant areas.

Within the confines of the scientific process. You butted in on the ongoing conversation, which is fine as this is a forum after all, and then disregarded the context of that conversation.

Next, you keep reiterating this multiple source data as if it's a mantra. If you need broad data, then you will have to acquire a set of data covering your hypothesis. Whether that is broad or not is up to the study, if that comes from multiple sources or not depends on what data is available. The fewer sources the better.

You were pretty clear in the last post. Initially, you referred only to "science". If those goalposts have moved, fine, I don't mind at all. The scientific method concerns itself only with the paradigms of science.

See, this is the strange thing. You joined an ongoing conversation and chose to argue a point, but for some reason you chose to disregard the context of the ongoing conversation. That is not a goalpost moving, that is probably a fallacy of some kind.

Mind you, if you're talking only about the scientific method, then the original criticism of this glaciology study wouldn't stand. The study is free to investigate aspects outside the scientific method itself.

If someone is free to or not isn't a matter of science but law. I'm pretty sure I haven't requested the authors be incarcerated.
The problem was that the authors suggested we move away from the scientific method to something more subjective and non-functional which would shatter the foundation of science. That is something I have a problem with since I like progress and understanding the world, both processes that would come to a screeching halt if we followed the recommendations of the paper.

Eh, validity is a sliding scale. A study looking at 9/10 necessary areas will still be quite likely to be on the money. 10/10 there is preferable.

Now you end up with the same argument as with diversity. Scientific validity is absolutely not a sliding scale, it is rigorous and set. Validity means that the hypothesis holds according to a well-defined criterion. This is never a "kinda" situation, either it holds or it does not (or someone gets a smack on the head for not formulating a testable hypothesis).

The numbers used can change though, and are usually set by the field. The 9/10 or 10/10 you talk about has nothing to do with validity, that will be asserted after the numbers have come in. Again, either the hypothesis holds or it does not (which is affected by the data).

 

[Silvanus]

Next, you keep reiterating this multiple source data as if it's a mantra. If you need broad data, then you will have to acquire a set of data covering your hypothesis. Whether that is broad or not is up to the study, if that comes from multiple sources or not depends on what data is available. The fewer sources the better.

Obviously it depends on the study. Very little doesn't. As for fewer sources being preferable, that's only if those few adequately cover the same ground, which often isn't the case.

See, this is the strange thing. You joined an ongoing conversation and chose to argue a point, but for some reason you chose to disregard the context of the ongoing conversation. That is not a goalpost moving, that is probably a fallacy of some kind.

I read the conversation. You still said "science" one point, and "the scientific process" another (which I've taken to mean the scientific method). If you didn't mean science as a whole when you said "science", fine. Don't blame me for that.

The problem was that the authors suggested we move away from the scientific method to something more subjective and non-functional which would shatter the foundation of science. That is something I have a problem with since I like progress and understanding the world, both processes that would come to a screeching halt if we followed the recommendations of the paper.

That's absurd. Diversity of source is an issue of methodology, and a perfectly valid point of consideration. Scientists do not limit themselves only to objective fact in questions of methodology. It would be impossible to do so; they would be incapable of evaluating validity or representativeness, if they did.

Now you end up with the same argument as with diversity. Scientific validity is absolutely not a sliding scale, it is rigorous and set. Validity means that the hypothesis holds according to a well-defined criterion. This is never a "kinda" situation, either it holds or it does not (or someone gets a smack on the head for not formulating a testable hypothesis).

The numbers used can change though, and are usually set by the field. The 9/10 or 10/10 you talk about has nothing to do with validity, that will be asserted after the numbers have come in. Again, either the hypothesis holds or it does not (which is affected by the data).

This just makes me think you haven't read many studies. The number that put forward a hypothesis and end up with a "yes" or "no" answer is pretty damn small.

 

[SeanSeanston]

Another reason why I find feminists distasteful. They insist on looking at EVERYTHING through a feminist lens. I'm an atheist, yet I don't insist that we look at glaciers through an atheist lens. Just that we look at them and study them. A research paper on glaciers out to contain nothing about social politics - what does one have to do with the other?

I think this is the kind of stuff that should make the world realize that a lot of these people are simply quite mentally ill or at least deluded and genuinely need help and/or institutionalization if they actually believe any of this rather than simply exploiting the system for their own gain.

And yeah... this is the kind of thing that makes people vote for people they don't really want to vote for but frankly they've been pushed so far that they just want to lash back and don't care about the possible consequences anymore.
Lots of people don't want Trump... well maybe a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump don't really want Trump either. Maybe nobody really wants Trump as President, not even Trump himself, but they see it as the only option they have to strike any blow at all against something they feel has gone too far and they don't feel like being the nice guy anymore.

 

[Pseudonym]

"Knowledge" can refer to any structure or arrangement of thoughts or concepts. Why on earth would you take this arbitrary position that the only form of judgement it's possible to apply to those structures is whether they are "true" or "false", or indeed that the judgement or discernment of truth or falsehood is necessary at all.

I'm going to respond to this as this seems to be the brunt of our disagreement. While you certainly might use the word 'knowledge' in such a way as you describe, and while you might in the same way take 'knowledge' to refer to a banana, there is a millenia old tradition of having the word (well, not precisely that combination of letters, obviously) mean something far more specific than what you are saying. Specifically, in philosophy 'knowledge' has been taken to refer to a true, justified belief and while that definition is not uncontroversial this is the first time I've heard anybody claim that knowledge can exist without being true.

I get that these people and maybe you allong with them may be using a jargon I'm not quite familiar with but in that case I'd argue that this part of their jargon is a prime example of why these texts tend to be accused of being obtuse and complex. Because randomly taking a word and using it to mean something different but related from what it means to the rest of the Englishspeaking world is obtuse and makes comprehending such texts a needlessly complex affair. 'Knowledge' could but ussually does not refer to any structure or arrangement of thoughts or concepts. It doesn't refer to that in epistemology and it doesn't refer to that in any common usage I've ever run across. It is a normative word which signifies approval of whatever is said to be knowledge.

I think if you're taking a "multiple knowledges" approach it very specifically means that acceptance is not a claim to truth, otherwise the whole concept of multiple knowledges would not make sense, right? This is actually the problem I have with it, I think when you dig below the surface it actually doesn't make sense because it doesn't resolve the problem of competing truth claims, it merely relies on a limitless capacity to defer the question of the truth which I ultimately don't think is possible in the actual "field" in which research takes place, and where we are constantly called upon to make assumptions and judgements about the truth whether we want to or not.

Well, when interpreting the text I took the same reasoning backwards. Since competing truth claims seems to be the main source of tension between scientists and local communities that could be solved by respecting multiple knowledges as valid, and I assumed the article tried to have any relevance to anything (that and I take 'knowledge' to mean knowledge), I assumed they hoped for relativism to be a guide to tolerance.

Lastly, some phrases of which I genuinely don't know what you mean by them.

"False", no. We've gone over why a multiple knowledges approach doesn't really lend itself to discussions of "truth" with a capital T.

As opposed to truth with a small t? What does 'truth with a capitol T' even mean. I hear this phrase ever so often and I am always somewhat bewildered by it.

It's also worth noting that the article also does not specify the scope of the contexts in which these multiple knowledges may be considered valid. Thus, I really think people are trying to read too much into it, and indeed to allege things which are specifically refuted in the text. Multiple knowledges does not mean that those knowledges must be accorded equal merit in some grand ontological sense, it is perfectly reasonable and empirically correct to point out that there are people on this planet who do think glaciers listen to people or are offended by certain smells, and that this mode of understanding is contextually accurate within the worldview of those people. However, the context in which that can be taken as "valid" may in fact be very small, possibly confined to a single community or a specific ritual or mythological setting.

I still don't understand what it means for knowledge to be valid in a context, community, ritual or mythological setting, or to be contextually accurate. If you mean that you can have knowledge of a mythology than that is of course true but rather trivial. If you mean that people can correctly and incorrectly partake in a ritual even though the ritual itself is silly, I also agree.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Uhrm, yes it does. Diversity exists as a concept in science. If covering a broad area, you'll want data sourced from all relevant areas.

What you're doing here is twisting how the word diversity should be interpreted in order to make the original article sounds less ridiculous. This is an impossible task, frankly, and trying to rationalize nonsense actually does a disservice to your cause.

First of all, in studies that make use of multiple data sets or do "meta-analysis" to try reach a more firm consensus, care is taken to ensure that the data sets are both relevant and of high quality. This means the experimental procedures are clearly explained and correctly interpreted according to a common understanding of good practices (e.g. double-blind results, common measures used to quantify results, etc.). And these works are given weight if they come from qualified sources in refereed publications. The system isn't perfect, but on balance it's pretty damn good.

What does it take to contribute? It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender, race, or nationality, and everything to do with producing good work that can withstand scrutiny by experts in the field. Scientists are justifiably proud of their tradition of fostering a professional environment by setting aside political and cultural differences. The argument that we've somehow been missing out on great insights by not listening to "marginalized voices" is the height of absurdity. This isn't tumblr, it's science. The purpose is the search is for objective truth, not satisfying diversity quotas in the identities of those doing the searching.

 

[Silvanus]

What you're doing here is twisting how the word diversity should be interpreted in order to make the original article sounds less ridiculous. This is an impossible task, frankly, and trying to rationalize nonsense actually does a disservice to your cause.

No, that's not what I'm doing. That point wasn't even made in reference to the article, but solely and specifically in response to what Fallow claimed; that the very concept does not even exist in science at all.

EDIT: The line about "my cause" is also a wee bit presumptuous.

 

[Fallow]

Oookay, let's do this.

Obviously it depends on the study. Very little doesn't. As for fewer sources being preferable, that's only if those few adequately cover the same ground, which often isn't the case.

Yes, that was obvious. But then you wrote the last statement, which was obvious too so i really don't know to which level I need to explain this stuff.

I read the conversation. You still said "science" one point, and "the scientific process" another (which I've taken to mean the scientific method). If you didn't mean science as a whole when you said "science", fine. Don't blame me for that.

Does this not fit with 'context'?

That's absurd.

Nope. You can view the analysis I added to the OP if you want more detail than that.

Diversity of source is an issue of methodology, and a perfectly valid point of consideration.

Nope. Diversity of source is below methodology, either by one step (diversity of source needs to be dealt with but is not part of the project aim) or by two steps (diversity of source is that which is studied in the project).

Scientists do not limit themselves only to objective fact in questions of methodology. It would be impossible to do so; they would be incapable of evaluating validity or representativeness, if they did.

Methodology is purely objective, which obviously does not preclude speculation (which means prediction, projection, modelling etc). That's kinda why it's under the umbrella of 'science' and not 'blogging'. If it's not a scientific project you are ofcourse free to do whatever you want.

This just makes me think you haven't read many studies. The number that put forward a hypothesis and end up with a "yes" or "no" answer is pretty damn small.

Spoiler: This requires a waaat

Well, I read 3-7 articles a week and I attend at least one journal club a week. If that counts as not many studies I would like to know the threshold.

What you have been reading aren't the hypotheses in that case; perhaps it was the Discussion or Conclusions section? Was it a scientific publication? Was it a blog?

You don't have to formulate your results in a yes/no fashion, it's pretty uncommon to do so. It's also pretty uncommon to specify your hypothesis answer instead of the numbers from the experiments.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable (the second kinda derives from the first). If it is not testable, then it is not, by definition, a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Silvanus]

[...]so i really don't know to which level I need to explain this stuff.

This is a rather presumptuous attitude; as if we don't have disagreement, but merely the need to "explain" to the poor fool who doesn't understand. Patronising nonsense.

I read the conversation. You still said "science" one point, and "the scientific process" another (which I've taken to mean the scientific method). If you didn't mean science as a whole when you said "science", fine. Don't blame me for that.

Does this not fit with 'context'?

Well, no, not really; since if you were saying "diversity isn't necessary within the scientific process", it would not have been relevant in the slightest to the study. The study is not inserting diversity anywhere in the process itself; it is related to the subject.

Nope. Diversity of source is below methodology, either by one step (diversity of source needs to be dealt with but is not part of the project aim) or by two steps (diversity of source is that which is studied in the project).

That's a bizarre claim. Obviously, the source of your data is a prime methodological consideration; one of the fundamentals.

Methodology is purely objective, which obviously does not preclude speculation (which means prediction, projection, modelling etc). That's kinda why it's under the umbrella of 'science' and not 'blogging'. If it's not a scientific project you are ofcourse free to do whatever you want.

Were something purely objective, its nature would rest solely in the object; that's what it means. Representativeness and validity are metrics and frameworks imposed from outside for the sake of evaluation.

There's been a real rash of misuse of the word "objectivity" recently.

You don't have to formulate your results in a yes/no fashion, it's pretty uncommon to do so. It's also pretty uncommon to specify your hypothesis answer instead of the numbers from the experiments.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable (the second kinda derives from the first). If it is not testable, then it is not, by definition, a scientific hypothesis.

Obviously. That's something I never disputed, and I'm unsure why you brought it up.

You said that validity was not a sliding scale; as if there is a demonstrable and single point at which a study's results are "valid". That's what I was talking about. I used the "yes/no" example to show how ridiculous that notion is.

 

[Fallow]

Well, no, not really; since if you were saying "diversity isn't necessary within the scientific process" , it would not have been relevant in the slightest to the study.

Then from now on please stick to the official definitions for 'context' because yes, that is indeed how 'context' works. If it has to be explicit then it is not in context.

I said 'diversity' does not exist within the scientific process, and cannot exist for very good reason.

The study is not inserting diversity anywhere in the process itself; it is related to the subject.

The study wants empirical research to be replaced with "other knowledges" which would destroy the scientific process as it can no longer be validated. Science rests on a pretty simple foundation : We find the truth by objective measurement and validation. The study suggests that we should respect "other ways" of knowledge, i.e. non-objective. This would be disastrous and progress would come to a halt (which is funny because the journal is called 'Progress in Human Geography').

But you are correct in a way; the study is not inserting diversity into the scientific process directly, it is an unavoidable consequence of bypassing the requirement for objective knowledge. So if you go P -> Q it is, but if you choose to not consider the consequences then it's fine.

That's a bizarre claim. Obviously, the source of your data is a prime methodological consideration; one of the fundamentals.

Nope. Methodology regards the setup and design of methods and processes. Data source is not a method, nor is it a process. Hence, not considered within the methodology context.

Methodology is purely objective, which obviously does not preclude speculation (which means prediction, projection, modelling etc). That's kinda why it's under the umbrella of 'science' and not 'blogging'. If it's not a scientific project you are ofcourse free to do whatever you want.

Were something purely objective, its nature would rest solely in the object; that's what it means.

Very good. How do you reckon numbers fit in with that? How do you reckon designing a set of processes and methods that produce universally quantifiable metrics would go with that? I think it would mesh well.

Were the methods and processes producing random colours and randomly generated inspirational phrases I would agree with you. But alas, they do not, hence methodology is objective.

Representativeness and validity are metrics and frameworks imposed from outside for the sake of evaluation.

There's been a real rash of misuse of the word "objectivity" recently.

Representativeness and validity are metrics if you include binary outcomes (not sure if you consider this obvious or not). Something is representative or not, something is valid or not. If something is true, then it is true. If A + C = D then it must always hold, yes? Alcohol will ALWAYS boil at ~78 degrees Celsius and ~1 bar, yes?. If you call that a framework, then yes they are frameworks, otherwise no.

Not sure why you used double quotes on objectivity.

You don't have to formulate your results in a yes/no fashion, it's pretty uncommon to do so. It's also pretty uncommon to specify your hypothesis answer instead of the numbers from the experiments.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable (the second kinda derives from the first). If it is not testable, then it is not, by definition, a scientific hypothesis.

Obviously. That's something I never disputed, and I'm unsure why you brought it up.

You said that validity was not a sliding scale; as if there is a demonstrable and single point at which a study's results are "valid". That's what I was talking about. I used the "yes/no" example to show how ridiculous that notion is.

Well, you said

This just makes me think you haven't read many studies. The number that put forward a hypothesis and end up with a "yes" or "no" answer is pretty damn small.

To which my answer was pretty explicit and also very educational, you're welcome.

And if you want to somehow show that something can be 0.28 valid, you will need a far better example. Have you ever been 0.7 True? Does your congressman represent 0.45 of you? Or is 0.45 of your congressman your representative?

"This is kinda valid" is not something you see in published reseach.

Also, for those interested here is another thought on the article [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/05/climate-craziness-of-the-week-feminist-glaciology-in-the-climate-change-context/], this time on the supposedly "most viewed webpage about climate" site. The title is "Climate Craziness of the Week: 'feminist glaciology' in the climate change context"

Enjoy

 

[Silvanus]

The study wants empirical research to be replaced with "other knowledges" which would destroy the scientific process as it can no longer be validated. Science rests on a pretty simple foundation : We find the truth by objective measurement and validation. The study suggests that we should respect "other ways" of knowledge, i.e. non-objective. This would be disastrous and progress would come to a halt (which is funny because the journal is called 'Progress in Human Geography').

But you are correct in a way; the study is not inserting diversity into the scientific process directly, it is an unavoidable consequence of bypassing the requirement for objective knowledge. So if you go P -> Q it is, but if you choose to not consider the consequences then it's fine.

As I understood it, the study was suggesting that certain demographics are not well represented in the field; that there is data overlooked. I did not take that to mean it was validating purely subjective methods.

Unfortunately, the study now seems to be behind a paywall, so I cannot check. If there's a relevant area you could quote to show that's the case, I'd appreciate it.

Nope. Methodology regards the setup and design of methods and processes. Data source is not a method, nor is it a process. Hence, not considered within the methodology context.

Analysis [http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html] is a part of the process. The source of the data is something which must be analysed.

Plainly, you cannot simply say "X is not a method. Hence, it is not considered within the methodology context". That's simplistic sophistry. A dozen things which are not themselves methods need nonetheless be considered during prediction, analysis, reproduction, etc.

Very good. How do you reckon numbers fit in with that? How do you reckon designing a set of processes and methods that produce universally quantifiable metrics would go with that? I think it would mesh well.

Were the methods and processes producing random colours and randomly generated inspirational phrases I would agree with you. But alas, they do not, hence methodology is objective.

Analysis is right there, as an essential step in the process. So is conclusion. Both frequently include interpretation of data, rather than objective reportage.

Nobody is talking about random data. Only interpretation. Professional interpretation; rigorous interpretation; nonetheless, frequently non-objective.

Well, you said

This just makes me think you haven't read many studies. The number that put forward a hypothesis and end up with a "yes" or "no" answer is pretty damn small.

To which my answer was pretty explicit and also very educational, you're welcome.

And if you want to somehow show that something can be 0.28 valid, you will need a far better example. Have you ever been 0.7 True? Does your congressman represent 0.45 of you? Or is 0.45 of your congressman your representative?

"This is kinda valid" is not something you see in published reseach.

Blatantly. You would, however, very frequently see terms like, "this would suggest [...]" or "this indicates [...]".

The examples you use-- "0.7 true", "0.45 representative"-- are (presumably) here to indicate the absurdity of presenting non-mathematical concepts in mathematical terms. But that was rather the same point as I was making when I said you cannot reduce validity to a binary state.

 

[Paragon Fury]

This...this is the kind of stupidity you can't reason with or logic/argue away.

It can only be stopped by simply pummeling the person (people) pushing it until they renounce it or die. If they've already gotten to the point where they think something like this is acceptable and reasonable, they're past the point where outside logic and reasoning will have any effect on them.

 

[Fallow]

As I understood it, the study was suggesting that certain demographics are not well represented in the field; that there is data overlooked. I did not take that to mean it was validating purely subjective methods.

Unfortunately, the study now seems to be behind a paywall, so I cannot check. If there's a relevant area you could quote to show that's the case, I'd appreciate it.

Crucially for feminist glaciology, feminist political ecology argues for the integration of alternative ways of knowing, beyond diverse women?s knowledges to include ?more broadly ? the unsettling of Eurocentric knowledges, the questioning of dominant assumptions, and the diversification of modes and methods of knowledge production through the incorporation of everyday lived experiences, storytelling, narrative, and visual methods.

​

Alternative ways of knowing is referencing following non-objective methods. Questioning dominant assumptions would be fine (and indeed a cornerstone of science) were the methods of supplanting these assumptions objective.

St. Germain, LeGuin, Khan, and many others ? from Roni Horn (2009) to Pauline Couture (2005) ? approach glaciers from distant and varied disciplinary and artistic spaces compared with glaciologists or even anthropologists studying human-glacier interactions. Such alternative representations of glaciers are rarely incorporated or even acknowledged within greater discourses of glaciology and global environmental change research. Yet their voices should not simply be disregarded, overshadowed by Western science, or, worse, relegated from policy contexts where, in fact, the human experience with ice matters greatly. These alternative representations from the visual and literary arts do more than simply offer cross-disciplinary perspectives on the cryosphere. Instead, they reveal entirely different approaches, interactions, relationships, perceptions, values, emotions, knowledges, and ways of knowing and interacting with dynamic environments. They decenter the natural sciences, disrupt masculinity, deconstruct embedded power structures, depart fromhomogenous and masculinist narratives about glaciers, and empower and incorporate different ways of seeing, interacting, and representing glaciers ? all key goals of feminist glaciology.

​

Sorry for the long quote but I think the context is important here.
This is the best part. Can you decode the message?

Spoiler

The author is suggesting that the facts derived from the natural sciences should take a backseat to the "knowledges" and "different ways of knowing" from arts and literature because only the latter follow a feminist narrative.

Analysis [http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html] is a part of the process. The source of the data is something which must be analysed.

Plainly, you cannot simply say "X is not a method. Hence, it is not considered within the methodology context". That's simplistic sophistry. A dozen things which are not themselves methods need nonetheless be considered during prediction, analysis, reproduction, etc.

Yes, and analysis requires setting up in the methodology part because it requires a method. You need to figure out how to analyse your data, what method to use. Prediction requires a method (prediction useing method A need not give the same result as prediction using method B), and to be honest I've never heard of anyone considering reproduction during the methodology part of the process - it follows naturally from documenting your entire process and providing all the conditions under which you performed your experiments. But if that's in there I will accept it as truth.

Analysis is right there, as an essential step in the process. So is conclusion. Both frequently include interpretation of data, rather than objective reportage.

Nobody is talking about random data. Only interpretation. Professional interpretation; rigorous interpretation; nonetheless, frequently non-objective.

Yes, and analysis must be objective. You must provide the grounds for your results and the process through which you arrived there. If you try to publish your manuscript without showing how you got the numbers (which is around 66% of the entire manuscript) chances are your peer review will just be three lines of "No, just no". Numbers all the way, and a well-defined process. That sounds very objective to me. You can of course choose to skip all that, but then it's an issue with the scientist, not the process.

The Conclusion need not be objective since, as you say, it must include some form of interpretation or extrapolation. The Discussion should not be objective, since then it's not discussing and the numbers are already covered in the Results.

Blatantly. You would, however, very frequently see terms like, "this would suggest [...]" or "this indicates [...]".

The examples you use-- "0.7 true", "0.45 representative"-- are (presumably) here to indicate the absurdity of presenting non-mathematical concepts in mathematical terms. But that was rather the same point as I was making when I said you cannot reduce validity to a binary state.

Exactly, but you are missing a component; the premise is the number. "The model had an AUC of 0.88, suggesting that the principle is valid for the selected subpopulation. Expected noise from previous quality audits was 0.09".

Note that there is no level of validity discussed, ever. Let's try this another way; If you can find me a study where a hypothesis' validity or veracity is discussed as a non-binary value I will concede the argument.