Thus Tashjian & Galván whose work enquires about the feelings of a self-select, non-representational sample of participants that bears little, if any, relation to reality-as-is
Science is trying to figure out what is real and true.
Anything else is not science.
That's me quoting from memory what our professor in "Theories of science" told us in the first seminar, right at the start.
And it was a contentious point with many back then already (the usual suspects using pomo relativisms as excuses to call their pet ideas science), inc. in linguistics, semiotics, and so on.
If I were to guess and not just blame the creeping politicisation of academia since the 1970s (Swedish timeline), I'd say that what really opened the floodgates was the IPCC report stating "90% of scientists agree".
In effect, "authority" does it, therefore it cannot be wrong to do it, if it is for a Good Cause.
All academias have slightly different timelines, with me pointing, exemplarily speaking, to German-language academia, which was broken in/during/the aftermath of WW1 when, due to the bankruptcy following the lost war, German universities lost the edge (German as an first-choice academic language was overtaken by English in the 1920s).
Historical scholarship by, among others, those enquiring into Wilhelmine Germany (that would be the so-called '2nd Empire', 1871-1918) have now determined, whatever the faults of the political, industrial, and financial elites, Germany was a well-functioning society; it all went down the drain thereafter.
As to your example with the IPCC, did you ever find the time to read Donna Laframboise's eye-opening book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011)? If not, I highly recommend it as to the shenanigans of the IPCC.
“Participants in the Negative Condition reported worsening affect and demonstrated performance interference post-tweet compared to those in the Neutral Condition [so, it you’re a) 2/3 female, b) belong to one (ore more, I suppose) ‘historically-marginalized group’, and c) are on social media seeing Mr. Trump’s utterances, your ‘spatial reasoning’ was off].”
From what I’ve seen a lot more than *spatial* reasoning was affected. It’s more like, “If I think of Trump, all reasoning goes out the window. I’m completely unable to perform simple tasks and I reflexively take the opposite view of Trump no matter what it may be.”
Oh, 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' was (is) still going strong, and it was succeeded, during the Biden years, by 'Covid/Fauci Derangement Syndrome', which in turn was subsequently replaced by the equally manufactured 'Putin/Russia Derangement Syndrome'.
Case in point: my parents recently told me they would *not* travel to Russia for touristic purposes 'because Putin' (but had no problems vacationing in, say, China or Türkiye a few years before Covid).
To say nothing about many peoples' ('normies', if you like) sentiments as regards, well, politicking, which is held in contempt, but 'what can anyone individual do'?
Well, in the US we can vote. And we can bitch at our legislators. Both have an effect.
What has always amazed me about the TDS bunch is their uniformity on other matters. For example, “Covid shots work, but you have to take yours to protect me, even though I’ve already taken the shots.” Hard to get a handle on that thinking. I used to ask them if they were talking about the Trump shots just to screw with their heads. Fauci, on the other hand, seemed to benefit from an undeserved halo effect, no matter what Administration was in power. Another tribal belief seems to be that Ukraine must be defended as if it were a territory of the US, which hardly seems rational.
I think you meant that your parents would NOT travel to Russia because of Putin. I kind of agree with that, but simply from a risk perspective. I also wouldn’t favor visiting mainland China now, also from a risk perspective. But the risk level changes depending on the political situation. It might get better, or worse, in the future.
Oh, the Covid op is right up there next to the 'we stand with Ukraine' op, no doubt about it; the main difference, I'd submit, is that the former lacks a really existing bogeyman, which the latter has ('Putin! Putin! Putin!').
I did mean my parents would *not* visit Russia because Putin, you're right about this. I share your approach to such matters.
Science is trying to figure out what is real and true.
Anything else is not science.
That's me quoting from memory what our professor in "Theories of science" told us in the first seminar, right at the start.
And it was a contentious point with many back then already (the usual suspects using pomo relativisms as excuses to call their pet ideas science), inc. in linguistics, semiotics, and so on.
If I were to guess and not just blame the creeping politicisation of academia since the 1970s (Swedish timeline), I'd say that what really opened the floodgates was the IPCC report stating "90% of scientists agree".
In effect, "authority" does it, therefore it cannot be wrong to do it, if it is for a Good Cause.
All academias have slightly different timelines, with me pointing, exemplarily speaking, to German-language academia, which was broken in/during/the aftermath of WW1 when, due to the bankruptcy following the lost war, German universities lost the edge (German as an first-choice academic language was overtaken by English in the 1920s).
Historical scholarship by, among others, those enquiring into Wilhelmine Germany (that would be the so-called '2nd Empire', 1871-1918) have now determined, whatever the faults of the political, industrial, and financial elites, Germany was a well-functioning society; it all went down the drain thereafter.
As to your example with the IPCC, did you ever find the time to read Donna Laframboise's eye-opening book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011)? If not, I highly recommend it as to the shenanigans of the IPCC.
“Participants in the Negative Condition reported worsening affect and demonstrated performance interference post-tweet compared to those in the Neutral Condition [so, it you’re a) 2/3 female, b) belong to one (ore more, I suppose) ‘historically-marginalized group’, and c) are on social media seeing Mr. Trump’s utterances, your ‘spatial reasoning’ was off].”
From what I’ve seen a lot more than *spatial* reasoning was affected. It’s more like, “If I think of Trump, all reasoning goes out the window. I’m completely unable to perform simple tasks and I reflexively take the opposite view of Trump no matter what it may be.”
Oh, 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' was (is) still going strong, and it was succeeded, during the Biden years, by 'Covid/Fauci Derangement Syndrome', which in turn was subsequently replaced by the equally manufactured 'Putin/Russia Derangement Syndrome'.
Case in point: my parents recently told me they would *not* travel to Russia for touristic purposes 'because Putin' (but had no problems vacationing in, say, China or Türkiye a few years before Covid).
To say nothing about many peoples' ('normies', if you like) sentiments as regards, well, politicking, which is held in contempt, but 'what can anyone individual do'?
Well, in the US we can vote. And we can bitch at our legislators. Both have an effect.
What has always amazed me about the TDS bunch is their uniformity on other matters. For example, “Covid shots work, but you have to take yours to protect me, even though I’ve already taken the shots.” Hard to get a handle on that thinking. I used to ask them if they were talking about the Trump shots just to screw with their heads. Fauci, on the other hand, seemed to benefit from an undeserved halo effect, no matter what Administration was in power. Another tribal belief seems to be that Ukraine must be defended as if it were a territory of the US, which hardly seems rational.
I think you meant that your parents would NOT travel to Russia because of Putin. I kind of agree with that, but simply from a risk perspective. I also wouldn’t favor visiting mainland China now, also from a risk perspective. But the risk level changes depending on the political situation. It might get better, or worse, in the future.
Oh, the Covid op is right up there next to the 'we stand with Ukraine' op, no doubt about it; the main difference, I'd submit, is that the former lacks a really existing bogeyman, which the latter has ('Putin! Putin! Putin!').
I did mean my parents would *not* visit Russia because Putin, you're right about this. I share your approach to such matters.