Woke science

[andy_s]

Science + politics = politics.

[Randy Winkman]

I like the basic idea behind it. In some cases (possibly all) it's promoting accuracy as much as wokeness. e.g the "discovery" example.

Funnily enough, the race/racism issue came up in another PH thread a day or two ago. i.e. what does the word "racism" actually refer to?

[DaveTheRave87]

Scarletpimpofnel said:

I know someone doing a PhD at Cambs Uni.

As Cambs Uni is the premier uni for "cancelling" stuff it doesn't agree with (not necessarily wrong just wrong in their PC view) I can't help but feel his research which is in a controversial area has to be seen as PC not actually scientifically correct for it to allow him to gain his PhD. Therefore research from such places that repeatedly cancel what they don't like has little value as it cannot be trusted as being correct scientifically, as the PC view has to dominate the facts.

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

[Simpo Two]

DaveTheRave87 said:

Scarletpimpofnel said:

I know someone doing a PhD at Cambs Uni.

As Cambs Uni is the premier uni for "cancelling" stuff it doesn't agree with (not necessarily wrong just wrong in their PC view) I can't help but feel his research which is in a controversial area has to be seen as PC not actually scientifically correct for it to allow him to gain his PhD. Therefore research from such places that repeatedly cancel what they don't like has little value as it cannot be trusted as being correct scientifically, as the PC view has to dominate the facts.

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

You have to consider any bias of the tutor too. A cousin did a PhD in Welsh History (I think it was) about 20 years ago. He wrote what he felt was a detailed and accurate thesis on the demise of the mining industry. The tutor failed it. But my cousin knew that the tutor was a staunch Labour voter so he re-wrote it from a left-wing perspective and passed.

[Castrol for a knave]

DaveTheRave87 said:

Scarletpimpofnel said:

I know someone doing a PhD at Cambs Uni.

As Cambs Uni is the premier uni for "cancelling" stuff it doesn't agree with (not necessarily wrong just wrong in their PC view) I can't help but feel his research which is in a controversial area has to be seen as PC not actually scientifically correct for it to allow him to gain his PhD. Therefore research from such places that repeatedly cancel what they don't like has little value as it cannot be trusted as being correct scientifically, as the PC view has to dominate the facts.

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

Whereas I have a friend who's an academic and a very left wing one at that. He likes his PHD candidates who produce work which test a more right wing hypothesis. He says it challenges him and it can lead to some well written work, even if he personally does not agree with the starting point.

[DodgyGeezer]

Castrol for a knave said:

Whereas I have a friend who's an academic and a very left wing one at that. He likes his PHD candidates who produce work which test a more right wing hypothesis. He says it challenges him and it can lead to some well written work, even if he personally does not agree with the starting point.

Which makes your friend an excellent, and unusual, academic

[Castrol for a knave]

DodgyGeezer said:

Castrol for a knave said:

Whereas I have a friend who's an academic and a very left wing one at that. He likes his PHD candidates who produce work which test a more right wing hypothesis. He says it challenges him and it can lead to some well written work, even if he personally does not agree with the starting point.

Which makes your friend an excellent, and unusual, academic

I'll let him know. I usually tell himi looks the spit of Tony Robinson or a slightly camp Orc

[Simpo Two]

Castrol for a knave said:

Whereas I have a friend who's an academic and a very left wing one at that. He likes his PHD candidates who produce work which test a more right wing hypothesis. He says it challenges him and it can lead to some well written work, even if he personally does not agree with the starting point.

As it should be, well done that man. It should be about joined-up thought processes not political bingo.

[DodgyGeezer]

Castrol for a knave said:

DodgyGeezer said:

Castrol for a knave said:

Whereas I have a friend who's an academic and a very left wing one at that. He likes his PHD candidates who produce work which test a more right wing hypothesis. He says it challenges him and it can lead to some well written work, even if he personally does not agree with the starting point.

Which makes your friend an excellent, and unusual, academic

I'll let him know. I usually tell himi looks the spit of Tony Robinson or a slightly camp Orc

no reason he can't be that too

[ZedLeg]

DaveTheRave87 said:

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

You can’t forbid science. No one owns it.

Scientists are so desperate for funding that if someone found a way to categorically disprove destructive man made climate change they would publish. The day after they’d have so much money from the Kochs they’d be set for life.

[glazbagun]

ZedLeg said:

DaveTheRave87 said:

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

You can’t forbid science. No one owns it.

Scientists are so desperate for funding that if someone found a way to categorically disprove destructive man made climate change they would publish. The day after they’d have so much money from the Kochs they’d be set for life.

If Exxon could have they already would have- they've been trying for ~30 years, after all

I don't get why people assume scientists have been corrupted when they start telling us things we don't like or that will cost money. Surely it's the opposite- funding for the health benefits of eating processed food, living on coke, beer and tobacco would be limitless.

I once lived with a guy like this- banging on about the Green Agenda and Big Pharma but when asked about what Big Oil's "agenda" might be would change subject.

I suspect it was the same when trying to abolish slavery or end the opium trade. Ending something which is making you rich and powerful is never going to be easy. But they are also proof that it can be done.

[Randy Winkman]

glazbagun said:

ZedLeg said:

DaveTheRave87 said:

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

You can’t forbid science. No one owns it.

Scientists are so desperate for funding that if someone found a way to categorically disprove destructive man made climate change they would publish. The day after they’d have so much money from the Kochs they’d be set for life.

If Exxon could have they already would have- they've been trying for ~30 years, after all

I don't get why people assume scientists have been corrupted when they start telling us things we don't like or that will cost money. Surely it's the opposite- funding for the health benefits of eating processed food, living on coke, beer and tobacco would be limitless.

I once lived with a guy like this- banging on about the Green Agenda and Big Pharma but when asked about what Big Oil's "agenda" might be would change subject.

I suspect it was the same when trying to abolish slavery or end the opium trade. Ending something which is making you rich and powerful is never going to be easy. But they are also proof that it can be done.

Glad to see these views. I say stuff like this on the climate change political thread occasionally but it doesn't make much difference. We are all being held to ransom by a few lefty-scientists and Greta Thunberg apparently.

[Toaster]

Simpo Two said:

DaveTheRave87 said:

Scarletpimpofnel said:

I know someone doing a PhD at Cambs Uni.

As Cambs Uni is the premier uni for "cancelling" stuff it doesn't agree with (not necessarily wrong just wrong in their PC view) I can't help but feel his research which is in a controversial area has to be seen as PC not actually scientifically correct for it to allow him to gain his PhD. Therefore research from such places that repeatedly cancel what they don't like has little value as it cannot be trusted as being correct scientifically, as the PC view has to dominate the facts.

This is what keeps the "scientifically proven climate emergency" narrative going. Of course it will be scientifically proven if you forbid any science (or basic history) that disproves it.

You have to consider any bias of the tutor too. A cousin did a PhD in Welsh History (I think it was) about 20 years ago. He wrote what he felt was a detailed and accurate thesis on the demise of the mining industry. The tutor failed it. But my cousin knew that the tutor was a staunch Labour voter so he re-wrote it from a left-wing perspective and passed.

That's a little simplistic, when writing a PhD you cannot just take one perspective you have to write (discuss) across the spectrum not just one view, now depending on the subject matter you can take a particular stance but you cannot present this without balancing it against other theories. Also there is a lack of understanding here his 'Tutor' was probably his supervisor and a Tutor or supervisor cannot pass or fail a PhD.

Long before you submit work it has to undergo a confirmation of candidature this is a go, no go point aid reflection and it may have been at this point the supervisor and normally along with an independent academic your plan and work is reviewed. It can be a subtle change in the students work or it could be a whole re-think or it can be the student pulls out as they are so far off track.

At the end of process the student submits thier work which is normally read by 3 independent academics who have expertise within the field, it may be one has an expertise in politics another in Social Affaires and another in Ethics, you have to sit in a chair in front of these academics who will quiz you on your work this is called a academic Viva.......you had better understand what you wrote as this is the point that they check for understanding.

The tutor or supervisor plays no part in the assessment, so even if your cousins Tutor did hold left or right wing politics this would have no affect on whether your cousin passed or failed thier PhD........Nice story though to support your argument

Edited by Toaster on Monday 3rd April 08:12

[Toaster]

DodgyGeezer said:

Castrol for a knave said:

Whereas I have a friend who's an academic and a very left wing one at that. He likes his PHD candidates who produce work which test a more right wing hypothesis. He says it challenges him and it can lead to some well written work, even if he personally does not agree with the starting point.

Which makes your friend an excellent, and unusual, academic

Probably not, as an academic would find it stimulating to debate perspectives, can you imagine how boring it would be if everyone just agreed with them.

[Simpo Two]

Toaster said:

That's a little simplistic, when writing a PhD you cannot just take one perspective you have to write (discuss) across the spectrum not just one view, now depending on the subject matter you can take a particular stance but you cannot present this without balancing it against other theories.

I'm just going by what he told me. The work in question was not the whole PhD, just one part.

[Toaster]

Simpo Two said:

Toaster said:

That's a little simplistic, when writing a PhD you cannot just take one perspective you have to write (discuss) across the spectrum not just one view, now depending on the subject matter you can take a particular stance but you cannot present this without balancing it against other theories.

I'm just going by what he told me. The work in question was not the whole PhD, just one part.

Understand what they told you but you cannot be failed for holding a position (left, right or centrist) on politics what is more to the point I suspect they were told a broader picture needed to be brought in to focus.

Undertaking a PhD takes between 3-7 years and there is a whole process, which includes supervision and may include submitting essays in the early days and short comings such as not reviewing other work will be flagged and the student sign posted to consider other aspects. It is not for a tutor or supervisor to tell a PhD candidate what to do, the Candidate decides on their own question and how to answer it, they are not given the question.....

That is how it works its not an undergrad degree where you get spoon fed the course, a Masters degree you get compressed information and you go and look for the rest and a PhD essentially you are writing your own course, you are not taught a subject. Totally different approach, that has a robustness and rigour which is assessed independently the assessing chair is from another university, the other assessors will also be independent but may have one from the University but not known directly to the student.

[otolith]

There is only one correct way to write a PhD thesis, and that’s exactly how your supervisor would have written it

I suppose you could in theory ignore him or submit something he’s not seen, but it would not be easy or advisable.

[Toaster]

otolith said:

There is only one correct way to write a PhD thesis, and that’s exactly how your supervisor would have written it

I suppose you could in theory ignore him or submit something he’s not seen, but it would not be easy or advisable.

Given that your supervisor would not have written the subject matter clearly that’s not correct as a PhD is adding to or creating new knowledge unlike a undergrad degree which is showing understanding of an existing topic.



Doh !

Edited by Toaster on Tuesday 4th April 11:43

[otolith]

Toaster said:

Given that your supervisor would not have written the subject matter clearly that’s not correct as a PhD is adding to or creating new knowledge unlike a undergrad degree which is showing understanding of an existing topic.

Doh !

Well, mine didn’t like my writing style, despite it being perfectly respectable scientific prose.

[Toaster]

otolith said:

Well, mine didn’t like my writing style, despite it being perfectly respectable scientific prose.

Some can be awkward Bah lambs but you know where I am coming from a Tutor / Supervisor is not an examiner....so it would be perfectly correct to argue a political case left right or centrist

I do understand on my journey I wrote an essay and submitted it to a tutor in applied psychology who wrote on the very first page 'this isn't an english literature assignment' so yes the style is appropriate to the subject in hand. Engineering Maths Psychology social science and others all have thier own styles which to be honest is appropriate, to that school of science, whether I / we like it or not.