Can Veeky Forums redpill me on the "Science Wars"...

Can Veeky Forums redpill me on the "Science Wars"? I've noticed a distinct hostility centered on STEM curriculums from "critical theorists" on campus (mostly from feminist and black studies professors). Are there legit grievances toward the natural sciences regarding racism and sexism?

INB4 someone mentions pic related and their memes

Other urls found in this thread:

wsj.com/articles/the-campus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482?shareToken=stf41515773ad3490cb8140067a949560d),
twitter.com/AnonBabble

In terms of employment in research and academia, yes there is racism and sexism. But I don't know that it is any worse than exists in other fields and industries.

But in terms of theoretical content, there has been a distinct split between the sciences and humanities for awhile now. This probably originates with Hiroshima, but before that you also have Marx and Trade Unionism making the case that capital/technology are exploiting and abusing humans for profit.

More recently, scientists have grown dismissive of philosophy, not seeing it as a legitmate field and growing overconfidant in science's ability to explain all things. You can see this in people like Dawkins who love to take pot shots at the humanities and also in various stunts like the Sokal Affair.

Jealousy of us STEMbros because we're useful.

From a socioeconomic standpoint there is a case I'd say that industrialization has oppressed certain groups of people. I really wouldn't blame science for that though. Legitimate critiques against science would be like taking it too seriously or criticizing it for reducing the world philosophically, which I think is a problem but not one that concerns anyone's well being

>'redpill'
>those faggots
>'memes'
>wants to talk about sexism and racism

please go

Science is a discourse of Power. STEM should integrate with humanities and vice versa basically.

>This probably originates with Hiroshima
Uwot? This sounds pretty interesting

>More recently, scientists have grown dismissive of philosophy
At the risk of sounding like a complete "STEMbro", haven't the natural sciences done far more to advance and impact the world when compared to modern philosophers? I personally find reading about everything interesting, especially philosophy, but it doesn't seem to have grounded examples of use.

Would you say that science has a higher claim to truth than most other methodologies? It's not all comprehensive but it does its job very well.

ok =[

I would love to see more statistical analysis and empiricism within the humanities, but what would science incorporate?

>In terms of employment in research and academia, yes there is racism and sexism.

This is true. White men are actively discriminated against. Being a woman or an ethnic minority grants one special consideration for funding and employment.

I have been barred from so many scholarship opportunities because of this. Being a poor white male means that I get no aid

They're trying to criminalize independent thought, in case you hadn't noticed in the last 8 years.

Science is the best tool for examining the structure of the world and in its modern form is unparalleled, obviously. However the novelists truth, for example, can never be approached by science. Philosophy, as far as I have studied it which isn't that deep but more than a majority here at least, is concerned with the truth of human sensibility, or what can be said about what we know and reason with

Not so I'm not sure if this is where he's going with it, but...
When the U.S. government dropped nuclear weapons on Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, both cities were untouched with other bombs, so the possible damage of nuclear warfare could be examined. They even waited for it to have heavy traffic, so they could get a better understanding of the damage that could be done. This really brings ethics into the situation, which the humanities hold at a higher standard than the sciences.

I think a better case would be the pseudo-sciences of different ethnic groups, and genders.

>pseudo-sciences of different ethnic groups, and genders.

OP here, this is actually what I was referring to originally. I had to attend a capstone humanities class that boiled down to "as a white male STEM student you are privileged socially, economically, and intellecturally so STFU". This was the first time I encountered such animosity toward scientific endeavor, and it was framed as an issue of "intellectural justice". The concept seems so alien to me that I thought I'd look into it further to see their point. So far I haven't had any luck...

Ethics unfortunately seems to be the first casualty of war. I actually believe that the scientists on the Manhattan Project had utilitarian purposes in mind when they developed the atom bomb. Since its inception worldwide war casualties has proportionally dropped to unprecedented levels of peace, so is it ethical?

forgot my sauce

>9630516
What year was this?

>>This probably originates with Hiroshima
>Uwot? This sounds pretty interesting

Its a pretty straight forward idea. After the invention of nuclear war, there was serious soul searching about the nature of science and technology. Up until that point, we had plenty of evidence of the violence that technology could cause, but Hiroshima really drove home the idea that Science as Progress, the enlightenment notions of utopia and rationality might just be myths. It's hard to believe in Science as the ultimate good when it first discovers the means for global extinction before it comes anywhere near discovering the means for global utopia.

>At the risk of sounding like a complete "STEMbro", haven't the natural sciences done far more to advance and impact the world when compared to modern philosophers? I personally find reading about everything interesting, especially philosophy, but it doesn't seem to have grounded examples of use.

Again "impact the world" is a very difficult thing to measure. Infant mortality is down, literacy is up, diseases are cured, but we've also discovered the means for global annihilation. All it takes is one mistep, one leader with an itchy trigger finger, one failure in a computer circuit, and everything could be gone.

Say what you will about pre-industrial society, with it's cruelty and death, it was in a strange sense, more resilient against complete extinction.

As for the "use" of philosophy, it's only use is to understand the world and perhaps (only maybe) can guide us in how to act within the world. It won't be instrumentalized like science into technology.

Shouldn't taiping be one of the biggest?

The semester before last. Tbh my experience seems really similar to this professors (wsj.com/articles/the-campus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482?shareToken=stf41515773ad3490cb8140067a949560d), except I wasn't physically forced off campus, instead my opinion was just roundly ignored because of my privilege.

Anarcho-primitivism sounds kinda nice sometimes doesn't it? I have Amish family members and they seem incredibly happy and satisfied with their lives.

I would argue that the atomic bomb, while carrying immense potential devastation, has actually been the cornerstone of modern peace between global hegemonies.

It's represented as the highest bubble of the era, but you would think that proportionally it would be way more substantial

>Anarcho-primitivism sounds kinda nice sometimes doesn't it? I have Amish family members and they seem incredibly happy and satisfied with their lives.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's an option for the globe as a whole, without first some widespread population thinning. Otherwise abandoning the industrial model of agriculture will lead to wide spread famine.

>I would argue that the atomic bomb, while carrying immense potential devastation, has actually been the cornerstone of modern peace between global hegemonies.

I think the counterpoint here is that the nuclear technology (or science as a whole) is neither good nor evil. Within itself it is amoral, nihilistic, without care for how it gets used.

This contrasts with the enlightenment values of Human Reason = Good and all that jazz.

>enlightenment values of Human Reason = Good and all that jazz.
If we are generalizing philosophical spheres, I would say that postmodernism's rejection of one source's value or truthfulness over any other's is far more insidious and damaging in the modern day.

It seems hard to imagine the countless hours of work and dedication put into nuclear research, resulting in mankind accessing magnitudes of power before thought to be held by god alone is anything but good, awe-inspiring, and all that jazz. Humanity, fuck yeah

>If we are generalizing philosophical spheres, I would say that postmodernism's rejection of one source's value or truthfulness over any other's is far more insidious and damaging in the modern day.

post-modern skepticism might be insidious, but more damaging that nuclear bombs? Seems like a pretty big stretch.

I think you also have to consider that technology/capitalism seems to want to push post-modern nihilism as a philosophy. It's very marketable, makes good consumer hedonists. I don't think you can view post-modernism as a pure reaction against capital or technology, but as the logical outcome of the radical decentering of all energies, be they individual desire or nuclear energy.

That's really interesting. I really wish that technocratic socialism would make a comeback to take a stand against your "nihlistic technology/capitalism" construct. Optimism and awe should be widespread in the scientific endeavor. This optimism should spring from a framework that places a scientific methodologies on a path toward global utopia, like you mentioned earlier, to balance out the inherent destructive capabilities that it has already produced.


Looking over this post it seems a little like Bokonism in Cat's Cradle

The pseudo-sciences was very bad understanding of genetics. For instance, they believed that indents on the inside of the skull would show what part of the brain was more developed than others. One spot showed submission, supposedly, and it was more common in Africans than any other ethnicity. The conclusion was that Africans needed to be enslaved, so they could have a purpose in their life. We have learned that this isn't true, but the concept remained that certain genders and ethnicities are inferior. Though that isn't to say that there aren't genetic differences between genders and ethnicities. I think people just get a waft of the point, and never actually get it. It's like the argument that males are stronger than females. Genetically, yes, males are designed to be stronger than females. That doesn't mean that a female can't be stronger than a male, but people understand it as that way

People who concern themselves with racism and sexism are not worth your attention

Yes historically there were incorrect assumptions made, and this is a great example of scientific consensus growing around a political goal. That is why it is important to identify why these theories are wrong.

They are not wrong because they deal with race or gender, they are wrong because they are untrue and a significant, lasting correlation could not be found. If there was widespread scientific consensus that proved that white men were had inferior flexibility, I would believe that even if a real-life stretch armstrong was born and proved an individual exception.

But they hold positions of culturally respected authority and judgement
>pic related

militarize you fool

>Would you say that science has a higher claim to truth than most other methodologies?
science is based on philosophy/metaphysics....so....

for example, Newton....

these brainwashed liberalized drones honestly think the gaping holes in their minds are justified.

If we real people can't purge them from the earth, it will be the end for all life.

>We have learned that this isn't true
have we?

>the concept remained that certain genders and ethnicities are inferior
inferior HOW? Inferior at working in western society? They absolutely were, and I would say most still are. Hence them being fenced out in the third world.

You're conflating all arguments about race with your cherrypicked strawman craniology example, aren't you?

>all races have the same potential
I honestly can't bring myself to stoop to counter such a moronic notion. They have different potentials to do different things.

In science, if you are a woman or a Diverse American, you will have a much easier time getting into better programs, and getting funding, for instance. To be clear: Blacks, Hispanics, and other small minority ethnic groups in the US are diverse. Maybe Muslims are diverse now too, I'm not sure. Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and whites are definitely NOT Diverse. Women count as Diverse in science since there typically isn't 50/50 representation.

Also, there seems to be a lot of resentment towards things like postcolonial theory, critical race theory, women's studies, and so on, it's viewed as an outgrowth of French philosophers like Foucalt Derrida etc. who are viewed as obscuritanist and typically lumped under the label "postmodernists". The French stuff in particular is viewed with disdain since no one seems to understand it anyway and they appear to appropriate scientific language in a questionable way. It's also sort of frustrating to see university funds go towards diversity training and critical race theory professors.

>Its a pretty straight forward idea. After the invention of nuclear war, there was serious soul searching about the nature of science and technology. Up until that point, we had plenty of evidence of the violence that technology could cause, but Hiroshima really drove home the idea that Science as Progress, the enlightenment notions of utopia and rationality might just be myths. It's hard to believe in Science as the ultimate good when it first discovers the means for global extinction before it comes anywhere near discovering the means for global utopia.
I have never understood why this was such a pivotal event. Yeah, it's a big fucking bomb that creates toxic fallout, but it's just that: a fucking bomb. We probably would've killed more people in a hypothetical invasion of Japan.

I don't like you or the way you write

>big bomb
stupid people need a spectacle to change their minds, something that momentarily suspends their programming

>We probably would've killed more people in a hypothetical invasion of Japan.

We did kill more people with traditional firebombs, wiping cities off the map. Bomber crews reported being sickened by the smell of burning flesh from thousands of feet up. The planned invasion of the home islands was expected to kill millions. The Japs were teaching housewives to make pikes out of farm implements. The War Department produced half a million purple hearts in anticipation of the casualties. Operation Downfall was going to be some grim shit.

Nuclear weapons were downright humanitarian.

>It's also sort of frustrating to see university funds go towards diversity training and critical race theory professors.
>>university funds

humanities depts are funded by bake sales and alumni donations and cost pennies compared to major research uni budgets. stem depts are funded by multi-million dollar corporate think tank grants. fuck you and your frustration, you have power and enjoy it blindly.

Can we at least close the critical race theory department? With that said, the hiring of administrator after administrator for the purposes of diversity training is a bigger money sink than the Resentment Department.

Can I get a quick rundown on these guys? I see them posted everywhere.

You're fucking retarded

If you're going to come here and regurgitate your public school history class slanted propaganda bullshit at least make some kind of effort

Just completely overlook the justification for invasion, sure. Like stopping wasn't an option.

so brainless

Don't wanna get too bogged down on the details

>Tojo was a good boy, he dindu nuffin
>He turning his life around
>Them marines is racist

When I said that we learned this isn't true, I was talking about the early stages of psychology, so yes we did learn that a certain part of the brain would not be swelled by being more intelligent in a specific intelligence. Also, humans are very genetically similar compared to other animals. There is, also, more to the advancement of a civilization than just genetics. If you weren't aware, it's kind of hard to start a city in the middle of a fucking jungle.

What makes modernizing so important that everyone has to? They have a way of living, which they are happy with, and when many start to modernize, they hate it. Underdeveloped countries need to have such a massive cultural shift to make modernization possible, and most people don't like change

Niggers and women feel threatened because a) niggers are on avetage a full standard deviation below the white median IQ and b) women tend to cluster more around the median, so they are less adept at tackling more complex problems

All this means is cotton pickers and cumdumpsters are significantly underrepresented in the natural sciences, which they erroneously perceive as due to institutional racism rather than their low intelligence

unfortunately too many philosophy and english depts remain Great White People Books courses for that to be consistent with the program of a university

Science, philosophy, politics, economics etc. are all copes for ugly, physically inferior specimen (incels) to deal with the fact that handsome men can do no wrong and are inherently most valuable.

The natural sciences prescribe an objective (static) effigy of human nature which threatened the privileged status of subjectivity in western philosophical discourse, replacing it with a corporeality that many STEM grads take to be the only relevant conception of the human being at all. Many humanities depts (race and sexual dissidence in particular) take this to be a rejection of more fluid or socially constructed notions of self, and argue that science uses its own archetypes to augment its power and oppress minority groups. Neither of these see the bigger picture - gender is certainly bordered or bracketed by the definitions of the sex chromosome, but that does not mean outliers are defective. They merely fall through the grid of empirical observation

Kek