I think I'm going to reboot this blog. The title is still appropriate, though I'm no longer really in the science field. I'm currently unemployed, looking for work, after an attempt at unionizing went wrong. It was a great learning experience in terms of labor organizing, but being inexperienced I made mistakes and lost legal protection. Cest la vie.
I've remained active in the Occupy movement/organization/whateveritis. That's an ongoing debate that I don't participate in as much, because we're still working on stuff in our particular chapter. I've seen other occupations in small and similar locations who are likewise working on stuff in their localities. Some are totally disorganized, some are moving into specific areas, some are kicking ass.
I hope to keep the movement rolling. That's part of why I'm rebooting this blog. Economic justice is an issue dear to me, which is why I became involved in labor organizing, and no movement/organization/whateveritis has so clearly addressed income inequality than the Occupy movement/organization/whateveritis has.
Practically speaking, we're currently trying to build coalitions in our community to find allies and bring people in. I think Kansas organizing can benefit from the Occupy movement's principles as a way of shifting policy and culture because it provides a perfect umbrella within which these small, disparate, outnumbered groups can work under. To do that, we've started going to other people's meetings and also picked up issues that are effecting our community.
Long-term-wise, I've been preaching a three part plan: 1. Build Worker Coops so we can have resources, 2. Build unions to restart the labor movement in the US, which is practically inexistent and directly addresses the problem of economic inequality, 3. Create live-in collectives to keep activists in contact, working together, and bills down so our resources go further.
I'm always open to more ideas, though. And, since this *is* a reboot post, I think I'll try to keep it at that. You can also follow me on twitter @HuxleyDick, where I'll prolly post more. But I'll try to get back onto my 1/week schedule here.
I know this started as a science blog, but now I'm experimenting elsewhere. And, if you've organized within Occupy, you know we've made mistakes along the way. So, it kind of fits in a funny way. And, heck, I still think science is important, so maybe this'll be a way of getting some of those old posts read by people who don't know science as well. ;)
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Monday, November 21, 2011
OccuBus
I've been participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement over the past two months. It's been exciting and worthwhile. In case you're wondering "What is the movement about?" or "What is the movement saying?", I'd like to lay that out in a couple of short sentences.
OWS's central message is that money has taken over the government, and that shouldn't be the case. We should be more democratic than oligarchic. Just because you're rich your voice shouldn't carry more weight.
While there are a host of other causes floating about, and there's also a general surge of diverse political opinion and discussion (something I've relished over these past two months), that's the central message that everyone -- from anarchists, socialists, progressives, Democrats, libertarians, Republicans, and so on -- agrees on.
That being said, our local chapter of this movement is trying to buy a bus. But we're broke. There are a lot of good reasons to own a bus, all central to the ideals of the occupy movement, which revolve around 1) presence of our movement, 2) mobilization of the occupiers to important areas, and 3) ability to carry around supplies and people to actions. If you have a little extra and like the idea of a group of spirited activists driving around doing community service and demonstrating against corruption in the government, then this is the group to donate to.
See us at www.occubus.org
Naturally, it's also just fun to give an update on life and what's come out of the Wichita chapter of the occupy movement, so if you don't have money, at least tell me if you think this is a cool idea or not.
OWS's central message is that money has taken over the government, and that shouldn't be the case. We should be more democratic than oligarchic. Just because you're rich your voice shouldn't carry more weight.
While there are a host of other causes floating about, and there's also a general surge of diverse political opinion and discussion (something I've relished over these past two months), that's the central message that everyone -- from anarchists, socialists, progressives, Democrats, libertarians, Republicans, and so on -- agrees on.
That being said, our local chapter of this movement is trying to buy a bus. But we're broke. There are a lot of good reasons to own a bus, all central to the ideals of the occupy movement, which revolve around 1) presence of our movement, 2) mobilization of the occupiers to important areas, and 3) ability to carry around supplies and people to actions. If you have a little extra and like the idea of a group of spirited activists driving around doing community service and demonstrating against corruption in the government, then this is the group to donate to.
See us at www.occubus.org
Naturally, it's also just fun to give an update on life and what's come out of the Wichita chapter of the occupy movement, so if you don't have money, at least tell me if you think this is a cool idea or not.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Chemistry Union
At the new job I work at I often hear complaints about wages, treatment, and working conditions. The Chemistry field looks precarious, at times. While this field is by no means the worst field to work within, I have taken to mentioning the benefits of unionism where I work to other workers.
Politics tends to be a "no-no" topic, from what I can tell about the atmosphere so this makes it somewhat difficult to broach. But I don't think a Chemists union would have to restrict itself to a single plant, or a single company, and in fact I think would be better if it did not restrict itself to a plant or company. In a sense Chemists already have a professional organization to help workers keep in touch with the chemistry field -- the ACS (though that only applies to Americans). But this is a wholly unbalanced relationship. It keeps a pool of ready and willing workers in contact with companies who may pick and choose, but we don't have bargaining rights outside of our resumes and references. I think that the chemistry employees would benefit greatly by forming a union -- and not just a union which is embedded within a given company, but a union formed by and operated by the workers themselves. This would give us, as employees, bargaining power in the labor market of chemistry. This is beneficial because it would aid us in bringing more stability to our jobs so that we can pursue the things in life that are worthwhile outside of work, such as family, projects, politics, and so forth. Further, it would make the working field equatable, as currently we are all disjointed which is beneficial only to those with collective bargaining power: our employers.
But it's a hard sell. I live in a conservative state, and conservative values tend to weigh against unionism on the basis of principle, and on the basis of fear. I mention fear because when I mentione unionizing, the responses are not of the sort, "I do not believe..." but "Such activities couldn't succeed", so I think there's at least some motivational fear which stops unionism from working. The sad thing is that rural, conservative states would benefit most from unionism. They tend to be the poorest!
Politics tends to be a "no-no" topic, from what I can tell about the atmosphere so this makes it somewhat difficult to broach. But I don't think a Chemists union would have to restrict itself to a single plant, or a single company, and in fact I think would be better if it did not restrict itself to a plant or company. In a sense Chemists already have a professional organization to help workers keep in touch with the chemistry field -- the ACS (though that only applies to Americans). But this is a wholly unbalanced relationship. It keeps a pool of ready and willing workers in contact with companies who may pick and choose, but we don't have bargaining rights outside of our resumes and references. I think that the chemistry employees would benefit greatly by forming a union -- and not just a union which is embedded within a given company, but a union formed by and operated by the workers themselves. This would give us, as employees, bargaining power in the labor market of chemistry. This is beneficial because it would aid us in bringing more stability to our jobs so that we can pursue the things in life that are worthwhile outside of work, such as family, projects, politics, and so forth. Further, it would make the working field equatable, as currently we are all disjointed which is beneficial only to those with collective bargaining power: our employers.
But it's a hard sell. I live in a conservative state, and conservative values tend to weigh against unionism on the basis of principle, and on the basis of fear. I mention fear because when I mentione unionizing, the responses are not of the sort, "I do not believe..." but "Such activities couldn't succeed", so I think there's at least some motivational fear which stops unionism from working. The sad thing is that rural, conservative states would benefit most from unionism. They tend to be the poorest!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Egypt is an Inspiration
I've been watching Al-Jazeera to catch up on the Egyptian uprising link
The images are an amazing sight to behold because they're of regular men and women standing up in protest to change their government. They're persons that want freedom. They're an example of how people can bond together to affect political change, and it is change of this nature that the United States could benefit from. They want democracy. I am not against democracy. But our politics do not account for the political nature of economics, and as economic power becomes intertwined in political power this is a poor interpretive stance. The economic is the political. With this message in mind, everyday persons in the United States could bind together in a general union ran by workers. Those who stock shelves, wait tables, and tend bars could have a political voice. At present there is no labor-left party within the United States, not one with power. But there could be one. The images of Egypt, of regular persons wanting freedom for themselves, give examples of how regular persons can stand up against the social constructs to make a better tomorrow. It makes one think that political struggle isn't an entirely depressing affair.
The images are an amazing sight to behold because they're of regular men and women standing up in protest to change their government. They're persons that want freedom. They're an example of how people can bond together to affect political change, and it is change of this nature that the United States could benefit from. They want democracy. I am not against democracy. But our politics do not account for the political nature of economics, and as economic power becomes intertwined in political power this is a poor interpretive stance. The economic is the political. With this message in mind, everyday persons in the United States could bind together in a general union ran by workers. Those who stock shelves, wait tables, and tend bars could have a political voice. At present there is no labor-left party within the United States, not one with power. But there could be one. The images of Egypt, of regular persons wanting freedom for themselves, give examples of how regular persons can stand up against the social constructs to make a better tomorrow. It makes one think that political struggle isn't an entirely depressing affair.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Weighing in on a national tragedy in an uncomfortable way
There has been much talk about the shooting of Representative Giffords and the death of innocent bystanders. Many causal sources have been proposed:
CSM reports that Europe believes that the political climate in general is at fault, and this is due to America's decline in power and its failure in two world wars. link
Sarah Palin and extreme Right-wing rhetoric link
Public School systems link
Ayn Rand, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and George Orwell link
Some "They do it, too!" from the right link
Some point to gun laws link
As long as we're weighing in political opinions, I might as well take a swing: the shooters actions are a clear indictment of capital. Capitalism encourages news sources to instead offer flash, fiction, and meta-commentary that conform to our predispositions -- this brings in a larger market share of viewers. The need for counter-factuals, scientific inquiry, and criticism is abolished. All that matters in every walk of life is profit. This drive for profit increases the number of persons, which, due to our limited capacity as thinkers, increases the number of sub-cultures which develop. Capitalism, in pursuit of the greater spectacle, further exacerbates these sub-groups so that they lose more and more common pragmatic rules of communication that are a necessary precondition for rational discourse. Each sub-group obtains its own epistemic values and assigns a differing distribution of weight to facts presented, which creates discontinuities between large groups of people. These discontinuities are further exacerbated when we attempt rational discourse, and noise is generated.
The internet is not to blame. This internet is to be praised for making this reality more apparent.
With noise, misinformation, confusion, political turmoil, meta-commentary, and economic hardship comes a climate that generates a person willing to shoot a politician for unknown, indistinct, un-rational reasons. And, for those thinking this a ridiculous causal hypothesis, I couldn't agree more. But I ask you this: Is this a better explication than anything offered so far?
If we were really interested in causal factors, then we'd likely wait on police reports or turn to the field of psychology. Everything offered in the news thus far has been sociology/politics. We're using the event to construct a narrative which argues for our politics -- we have a political axe to grind. I don't think this is even necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps we should reevaulate our rhetoric in light of having what that rhetoric means being shown to us. We should certainly reevaluate the role capitalism plays in everything complained of so far, such as irrational political discourse. However, as I am a proponent of rationality within political discourse, I think it best to understand that the news presented thus far has been political speculation -- like metaphysical speculation, but less structured.
CSM reports that Europe believes that the political climate in general is at fault, and this is due to America's decline in power and its failure in two world wars. link
Sarah Palin and extreme Right-wing rhetoric link
Public School systems link
Ayn Rand, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and George Orwell link
Some "They do it, too!" from the right link
Some point to gun laws link
As long as we're weighing in political opinions, I might as well take a swing: the shooters actions are a clear indictment of capital. Capitalism encourages news sources to instead offer flash, fiction, and meta-commentary that conform to our predispositions -- this brings in a larger market share of viewers. The need for counter-factuals, scientific inquiry, and criticism is abolished. All that matters in every walk of life is profit. This drive for profit increases the number of persons, which, due to our limited capacity as thinkers, increases the number of sub-cultures which develop. Capitalism, in pursuit of the greater spectacle, further exacerbates these sub-groups so that they lose more and more common pragmatic rules of communication that are a necessary precondition for rational discourse. Each sub-group obtains its own epistemic values and assigns a differing distribution of weight to facts presented, which creates discontinuities between large groups of people. These discontinuities are further exacerbated when we attempt rational discourse, and noise is generated.
The internet is not to blame. This internet is to be praised for making this reality more apparent.
With noise, misinformation, confusion, political turmoil, meta-commentary, and economic hardship comes a climate that generates a person willing to shoot a politician for unknown, indistinct, un-rational reasons. And, for those thinking this a ridiculous causal hypothesis, I couldn't agree more. But I ask you this: Is this a better explication than anything offered so far?
If we were really interested in causal factors, then we'd likely wait on police reports or turn to the field of psychology. Everything offered in the news thus far has been sociology/politics. We're using the event to construct a narrative which argues for our politics -- we have a political axe to grind. I don't think this is even necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps we should reevaulate our rhetoric in light of having what that rhetoric means being shown to us. We should certainly reevaluate the role capitalism plays in everything complained of so far, such as irrational political discourse. However, as I am a proponent of rationality within political discourse, I think it best to understand that the news presented thus far has been political speculation -- like metaphysical speculation, but less structured.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Feminism and Labor Politics
This month's IWW had an excellent article covering the intersection of labor politics and feminism. In particular, it asks some excellent questions for men within the labor movement in a direct, firm, and non-threatening manner. I highly recommend checking it out on the bottom of page 4:
IWW Jan/Feb 2011 Issue
I was very excited to see this issue, because I feel that many disparate left-leaning causes are in many ways fighting the same battle, and it's great to see this sort of crossover. After all, Marx expressed radical feminism, desiring to dismantle family structures and marriage because of their inherent tendency to enslave one class of persons as property to property owners.
IWW Jan/Feb 2011 Issue
I was very excited to see this issue, because I feel that many disparate left-leaning causes are in many ways fighting the same battle, and it's great to see this sort of crossover. After all, Marx expressed radical feminism, desiring to dismantle family structures and marriage because of their inherent tendency to enslave one class of persons as property to property owners.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Skepticon III
I just arrived back from Skepticon III to my small abode and I am exhausted. This was three days of skepticism, atheism, science, feminism, gay rights, sexuality, late night conversations, and reference-trading [I love references]. Talk about a fantastic venue. (It's also free due to the work of a lot of cool volunteers that I'd like to thank)
Perhaps my favorite aspect of these events is what seemed to be a large cross-over between the afformentioned groups: Feminism, LGBT rights, and general strong stance against right-wing religious movements. I hope these political trends continue to be introduced. It would be great to unify a sort of left-political force within the United States that aren't as blatantly not-left as the Democratic Party. Though I doubt everyone will agree with my particular politics, I'm tired of two blatantly bourgeois options.
Of those who spoke my favorite to listen to was PZ Myers. I like science things, and I thought his poker game analogy for evolution was a wonderful tool that I'm going to shamelessly steal.
Again, while this may not reach those organizers, thanks
Perhaps my favorite aspect of these events is what seemed to be a large cross-over between the afformentioned groups: Feminism, LGBT rights, and general strong stance against right-wing religious movements. I hope these political trends continue to be introduced. It would be great to unify a sort of left-political force within the United States that aren't as blatantly not-left as the Democratic Party. Though I doubt everyone will agree with my particular politics, I'm tired of two blatantly bourgeois options.
Of those who spoke my favorite to listen to was PZ Myers. I like science things, and I thought his poker game analogy for evolution was a wonderful tool that I'm going to shamelessly steal.
Again, while this may not reach those organizers, thanks
Monday, November 15, 2010
Evolution, Science, and Politics
Tonight I saw a film at my university titled Kansas vs. Darwin, with the filmmaker present, Q&A session, dinner, the works. It was very nice. While I've always maintained a certain fascination with Creationism, et al., I wasn't quite aware to how widespread beliefs in Creationism are. After watching the film, I decided to investigate what Gallup had to say:
2004 Gallup Poll on Americans beliefs: link
2007 Gallup Poll, coupled with some healthy Republican bashing, which reveals a similar trend: link
Now, I'm no social scientist, so I wouldn't say that I have the theoretical backing to interpret this data as well as it could be. But the trend is strong, in that Approximately 1/2 of Americans believe that God created man in his present form. This lies in contradistinction to the 1/3 of Americans which reject Evolution as a theory. I think this disparity is explainable in light of creationist beliefs that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.
The percentage numbers on this are staggering, however. I'm from Kansas, and so from the filter of popular culture, news, as well as some personal experience (organically flavored with personal bias) I knew that there existed quite a few individuals who rejected the theory of evolution. From reading creationist websites, however, I gained the impression that this was a fairly fringe group of individuals due to the nature of the claims, and that I just so happened to be lucky enough to live in a blood-Red state, where bouts of insanity are viewed as acceptable (I'm more joking than serious). Clearly, however, these suppositions are wrong. The shear percentage of individuals refutes my supposition that "Creation Science" is a fringe movement, politically speaking, and the film above stated there was... somewhere around 27 other states going through similar struggles? I can't remember the exact number, but it was greater than Kansas + Texas, the two likely candidates.
From the dinner and the video viewing, it seemed that this widespread belief could be explained on the basis of what possible philosophical implications the theory of evolution entails. There is certainly a movement of persons who believe that the theory of evolution entails materialism, atheism, a loss of moral value, and/or the loss of human dignity and specialness. I am not of this group of individuals.
However, it seems that there is this perception, and it may best be explained by two notions: The notion that Animals are inferior to Humans, and the notion that God created Man in his own image.
If man is an animal, then the inference from evolution is that man is not special. This contradicts our notion that man is a special being with a special purpose above that of the animals. Therefore, evolution must be wrong, because it animalizes man. On the face, outside of arguments for evolution, this is a convincing argument -- one may look at animals in the zoo and conclude that there is a world of difference between us, and because we value ratio-emotional-linguistic expressions that happen to communicate well with us, one may conclude that man is a special sort of creature above the animals. This explains the large number, at least in part.
The second notion: If man was generated by natural processes, then he was not always in the shape that he currently is in, and this contradicts Biblical teaching. If Biblical teaching, supposedly incontrovertible, is wrong in one instance, and The Bible must be taken as a literal whole, and The Bible is the basis for moral beliefs, then the theory of evolution threatens not only the historical myths upon which moral beliefs are found, but the moral beliefs themselves.
It seems to me that, for the regular individual involved, they aren't interested in scientific truth. The individuals involved are interested in a spiritual truth. However, on top of this layer of worry about materialism and the decay of moral values in a Godless society predicated upon natural selection there seems to be a strong political current. The 2007 Gallup Poll suggests that Republicans are catering to this sort of audience. This is pretty much standard fare tactics for the Republican party (promising empty metaphysical maybes to convince rural districts to vote against their economic advantage), so I wouldn't be surprised if a large section of this percentage is explicable in terms of political clout. Something else mentioned at the film was the divisiveness of the topic of evolution, and the fact that those against evolution bond together socially over their non-belief in evolution. It would seem plausible, given the Gallup poll above, that the Republican party is cashing in politically on this movement, which would explain why it is widespread -- it would certainly explain where funding for the institutions which pump out creationist literature come from.
To ask these social bonds to be dissolved is to ask too much. But, simultaneously, to ask people to believe in the strongest scientific conclusions within a Western society isn't asking very much. This hints at another source of the problem: Science Education being horrible, and science education being horrible not just because we live in an anti-intellectual culture that values funding imperialistic ventures for its stockholders (though that doesn't help). There is a disconnect between the scientific communities expectations of scientific literacy, and their willingness to put effort into educating the public on scientific matters. This is natural, given that careers are built on publications and patents (which, coincidentally, happen to be the things which support the Market). But if the scientific community wants the public to be educated, and given that the public funds the scientific community they honestly have a right to know what's going on, they need to change their attitude towards outreach programs and the value of popular science work. If these become worthwhile career enhancers (though that shouldn't be the bottom line in choosing who popularizes and who doesn't) then we're likely to see a rise in scientific literacy.
2004 Gallup Poll on Americans beliefs: link
2007 Gallup Poll, coupled with some healthy Republican bashing, which reveals a similar trend: link
Now, I'm no social scientist, so I wouldn't say that I have the theoretical backing to interpret this data as well as it could be. But the trend is strong, in that Approximately 1/2 of Americans believe that God created man in his present form. This lies in contradistinction to the 1/3 of Americans which reject Evolution as a theory. I think this disparity is explainable in light of creationist beliefs that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.
The percentage numbers on this are staggering, however. I'm from Kansas, and so from the filter of popular culture, news, as well as some personal experience (organically flavored with personal bias) I knew that there existed quite a few individuals who rejected the theory of evolution. From reading creationist websites, however, I gained the impression that this was a fairly fringe group of individuals due to the nature of the claims, and that I just so happened to be lucky enough to live in a blood-Red state, where bouts of insanity are viewed as acceptable (I'm more joking than serious). Clearly, however, these suppositions are wrong. The shear percentage of individuals refutes my supposition that "Creation Science" is a fringe movement, politically speaking, and the film above stated there was... somewhere around 27 other states going through similar struggles? I can't remember the exact number, but it was greater than Kansas + Texas, the two likely candidates.
From the dinner and the video viewing, it seemed that this widespread belief could be explained on the basis of what possible philosophical implications the theory of evolution entails. There is certainly a movement of persons who believe that the theory of evolution entails materialism, atheism, a loss of moral value, and/or the loss of human dignity and specialness. I am not of this group of individuals.
However, it seems that there is this perception, and it may best be explained by two notions: The notion that Animals are inferior to Humans, and the notion that God created Man in his own image.
If man is an animal, then the inference from evolution is that man is not special. This contradicts our notion that man is a special being with a special purpose above that of the animals. Therefore, evolution must be wrong, because it animalizes man. On the face, outside of arguments for evolution, this is a convincing argument -- one may look at animals in the zoo and conclude that there is a world of difference between us, and because we value ratio-emotional-linguistic expressions that happen to communicate well with us, one may conclude that man is a special sort of creature above the animals. This explains the large number, at least in part.
The second notion: If man was generated by natural processes, then he was not always in the shape that he currently is in, and this contradicts Biblical teaching. If Biblical teaching, supposedly incontrovertible, is wrong in one instance, and The Bible must be taken as a literal whole, and The Bible is the basis for moral beliefs, then the theory of evolution threatens not only the historical myths upon which moral beliefs are found, but the moral beliefs themselves.
It seems to me that, for the regular individual involved, they aren't interested in scientific truth. The individuals involved are interested in a spiritual truth. However, on top of this layer of worry about materialism and the decay of moral values in a Godless society predicated upon natural selection there seems to be a strong political current. The 2007 Gallup Poll suggests that Republicans are catering to this sort of audience. This is pretty much standard fare tactics for the Republican party (promising empty metaphysical maybes to convince rural districts to vote against their economic advantage), so I wouldn't be surprised if a large section of this percentage is explicable in terms of political clout. Something else mentioned at the film was the divisiveness of the topic of evolution, and the fact that those against evolution bond together socially over their non-belief in evolution. It would seem plausible, given the Gallup poll above, that the Republican party is cashing in politically on this movement, which would explain why it is widespread -- it would certainly explain where funding for the institutions which pump out creationist literature come from.
To ask these social bonds to be dissolved is to ask too much. But, simultaneously, to ask people to believe in the strongest scientific conclusions within a Western society isn't asking very much. This hints at another source of the problem: Science Education being horrible, and science education being horrible not just because we live in an anti-intellectual culture that values funding imperialistic ventures for its stockholders (though that doesn't help). There is a disconnect between the scientific communities expectations of scientific literacy, and their willingness to put effort into educating the public on scientific matters. This is natural, given that careers are built on publications and patents (which, coincidentally, happen to be the things which support the Market). But if the scientific community wants the public to be educated, and given that the public funds the scientific community they honestly have a right to know what's going on, they need to change their attitude towards outreach programs and the value of popular science work. If these become worthwhile career enhancers (though that shouldn't be the bottom line in choosing who popularizes and who doesn't) then we're likely to see a rise in scientific literacy.
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Scientist and Society
I have politics on the brain, with the state of the union address coming up, and as such have been lead back to what Cassidy's "Uncertainty" started: The interplay between science, scientists, and politics.
On the face of things it seems that the best a scientific minded individual to do is affect apolitical attitudes. This is what scientific organizations tend towards, and I think it's a good thing. We want our society to make decisions based upon the world we live in, so the best way to have this political influence is to not discuss or make statements about standard political questions. In some sense this is problematic, as we currently see debates on religion in public education, or we have a single political party that primarily speaks against global warming, but in these cases there are firm scientific reasons for taking a position: 1) Religion ain't science. 2) Data and the mainstream interpretation of that Data. In short, the success of the scientific method.
I can't agree more than with this position for scientific societies. It is in this way that they can best help society, in general. However, I wonder if this attitude is best for the scientific individual. Given I live in the United States, I would infer that the usual reply would be "No. The individual can express whatever they wish, so long as they, personally, take credit for said comment, and do not speak in the name of X organization". But, as it is in this way that scientific communities can better help direct their communities, if said individual is attached to such-and-such a cause in popular culture, it could put political question on any scientific pronouncement said individual has. In conflict with this is the premise that, as individuals, we ought to have the freedom to express our political affiliations outside of any other affiliations that we may harbor. However, people don't operate in said manner. They can attempt to separate the individual from their various affiliations, and even make a good faith effort to do so -- but we still retain knowledge of an individuals full social affiliations. And if we do, indeed, wish to effect society in the most positive way that a scientist can, it may be the case that we ought to forgo public political opinions in favor of public scientific pronouncements.
I don't pretend to have an answer to the question, I am only raising it as a question to be thought and ranted about. The converse of this position is, of course, the life of Werner Heisenberg. He's an extreme case, however, and we do not currently live in quite as extreme a time as he did, so I do not think his life example is a good example to base current opinions off of. However, I think most will agree that his example definitively states that there is, in the case where one accepts keeping quiet about political opinions, a point (line, plane?) somewhere when that person should stop playing the apolitic become publicly political. But under what circumstances is that the case, and can one even determine those circumstances during the times that those circumstances exist?
I wish there was a journal or forum for ethical discussions amongst the scientific community -- though that may violate the "Objective"-ness of the scientist on the political landscape.
On the face of things it seems that the best a scientific minded individual to do is affect apolitical attitudes. This is what scientific organizations tend towards, and I think it's a good thing. We want our society to make decisions based upon the world we live in, so the best way to have this political influence is to not discuss or make statements about standard political questions. In some sense this is problematic, as we currently see debates on religion in public education, or we have a single political party that primarily speaks against global warming, but in these cases there are firm scientific reasons for taking a position: 1) Religion ain't science. 2) Data and the mainstream interpretation of that Data. In short, the success of the scientific method.
I can't agree more than with this position for scientific societies. It is in this way that they can best help society, in general. However, I wonder if this attitude is best for the scientific individual. Given I live in the United States, I would infer that the usual reply would be "No. The individual can express whatever they wish, so long as they, personally, take credit for said comment, and do not speak in the name of X organization". But, as it is in this way that scientific communities can better help direct their communities, if said individual is attached to such-and-such a cause in popular culture, it could put political question on any scientific pronouncement said individual has. In conflict with this is the premise that, as individuals, we ought to have the freedom to express our political affiliations outside of any other affiliations that we may harbor. However, people don't operate in said manner. They can attempt to separate the individual from their various affiliations, and even make a good faith effort to do so -- but we still retain knowledge of an individuals full social affiliations. And if we do, indeed, wish to effect society in the most positive way that a scientist can, it may be the case that we ought to forgo public political opinions in favor of public scientific pronouncements.
I don't pretend to have an answer to the question, I am only raising it as a question to be thought and ranted about. The converse of this position is, of course, the life of Werner Heisenberg. He's an extreme case, however, and we do not currently live in quite as extreme a time as he did, so I do not think his life example is a good example to base current opinions off of. However, I think most will agree that his example definitively states that there is, in the case where one accepts keeping quiet about political opinions, a point (line, plane?) somewhere when that person should stop playing the apolitic become publicly political. But under what circumstances is that the case, and can one even determine those circumstances during the times that those circumstances exist?
I wish there was a journal or forum for ethical discussions amongst the scientific community -- though that may violate the "Objective"-ness of the scientist on the political landscape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
