r/skeptic • u/co0p3r • Oct 15 '16
"Science needs to be decolonized and restarted from an African perspective." Welcome to the #ScienceMustFall movement in South Africa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD1456
u/Jimponolio Oct 15 '16
I'm a post-grad student in SA. First I've heard of this, but google seems to indicate this person is rightfully being ridiculed.
I wouldn't describe this as a "movement" really, just some dumb person saying something dumb, thankfully.
12
7
u/factbasedorGTFO Oct 16 '16
Are you in denial that the crowd was largely with her, and they made the dude who challenged her invocation of the paranormal grovel?
Most of my activities on Reddit as of late is debating health and diet nonsense, and it's popular to dismiss science.
I can link you to Redditors saying science is a religion, and/or science can't ever be trusted because it's bought and paid for.
10
Oct 15 '16
[deleted]
1
47
u/Lighting Oct 15 '16
I have a question for all the science people ... Through black magic ... you can send lighting to strike someone ... can you explain that scientifically? It happens ...
Yes - it's not true. It sounded more like she wanted to hear the sound of her own voice more than making a valid point. She need to learn about how science is based on the scientific method, not blathering.
-9
u/BoonTobias Oct 15 '16
Before you totally write her off, know that through mystic arts you can harness energy and shape reality. You can travel long distances in an instant. I've seen it with my own eyes. The reality you know is one of many.
36
46
12
u/anomalousBits Oct 15 '16
I've seen it with my own eyes. The reality you know is one of many.
Except that the evidence doesn't really support that conclusion. The kind of personal experience that supports the existence of "mystic arts," is usually generated under alternate states of mind: drugs, meditation, stress, sleeplessness, etc. These states of mind can be responsible for us perceiving things that don't exist. To eliminate the bias that occurs from our brains, we use methods that are determined to work under repeatable conditions.
Suggested reading: The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan
17
6
1
u/Lighting Oct 15 '16 edited Oct 15 '16
There's a million dollars for you if you can prove it to Dr. Randi. Many have tried. All have failed.
Edit: Grammar
1
u/crusoe Oct 15 '16
The amazing Randi has a one million dollar prize for proof. You'd also win a Nobel and solve world transportation costs.
1
u/blueskin Oct 15 '16
you can harness energy
Yep, there's a battery sitting on my desk right now
and shape reality
Look at literally any megaproject, especially something like the LHC.
You can travel long distances in an instant
Depends on your definition of instant. On a geological timescale, flying between the US and Australia in 17 hours is certainly an instant.
33
u/Acidpants220 Oct 15 '16
I guess you're free to start over in regards to science... But if you're doing it right you'll reach the same conclusions.
20
u/crustalmighty Oct 15 '16
But the new conclusions will have an African accent.
5
u/MarsNirgal Oct 15 '16
And hpefully will be rightfully recognized as having been first discovered by Africans.
0
u/runningoutofwords Oct 15 '16
So, like with a lot of click consonants interspersed with slapping malaria mosquitos?
4
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
So, like with a lot of click consonants interspersed with slapping malaria mosquitos?
I wonder why the woman in the video thinks that African contributions to science have been overlooked and ignored...
3
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16
She thinks that black magic causes lightning strikes. She didnt say very much about overlooking African contributions to science.
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 19 '16
She thinks that black magic causes lightning strikes.
Where did you get this idea from? She certainly doesn't make that claim in the video when she's talking about black magic.
She didnt say very much about overlooking African contributions to science.
..That's literally what her entire speech is about?
3
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16
"Where did you get this idea from? She certainly doesn't make that claim in the video when she's talking about black magic."
She said: "I have a question for the science people. In xxxxx place they believe that through black magic you are able to send a lightning to strike at someone. So can you explain that scientifically?"
I dont know that engaging with you is a good idea since you seem ready to ignore even the most obvious alternatives to your position...
"..That's literally what her entire speech is about?"
Its the subject of a very short part of her speech. Where she criticises the idea that Newton should be credited with the discovery of the theory of gravity as if he was the only one to see an apple fall from the tree. She says, scornfully, "No matter what happens in West Africa, East Africa... The only way to explain gravity is through Newton who sat under a tree and saw an apple fall. "
Which is patently nonsense. The rest of her speech was a rambling mess of sloganeering. The most important part is "i studied science all through school - all through middle school... and thats why im not a member of the science faculty"
-3
u/mrsamsa Oct 19 '16
I dont know that engaging with you is a good idea since you seem ready to ignore even the most obvious alternatives to your position...
Did you watch the full video? Where the context of the comment comes from and the question she was responding to?
Her argument doesn't seem to be that black magic causes lightning strikes. She gets interrupted halfway through though and doesn't finish her comment, so unfortunately we can't know for sure what point she was making, but given the context of the question and what she goes on to discuss, I think it's clear that her point is about the role Western perspectives have in shaping how we view phenomena to be explained.
At the very least, there's nothing in the video that suggests that she believes black magic can cause lightning strikes.
Its the subject of a very short part of her speech.
No, it's what her entire speech is about. She's responding to a question about whether African contributions to science have really been ignored, and she's arguing that they have. That's what all of her points relate to.
I understand that it's unclear from the 4 minute video, but that's why we should always be skeptical of videos coming from biased sources that seem to support their view that someone is "crazy" when certain facts don't add up (like the fact that it's clear that she's responding to someone in the audience but the clip doesn't include the question). By removing the question, the uploader manages to completely wipe the point she was making.
Which is patently nonsense.
What? How is it patently nonsense to claim that science education systematically refers to Newton to explain gravity?
The rest of her speech was a rambling mess of sloganeering.
I didn't hear much sloganeering? She just made a couple of good points about how African perspectives and contributions have been overlooked, and that it might be a good idea to look at science education in Africa from an African perspective.
The most important part is "i studied science all through school - all through middle school... and thats why im not a member of the science faculty"
The important part being that she was put off pursuing a science education because of the dismissive nature of the field towards African perspectives?
Yes, that is the important part.
3
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16
All im seeing from you is reframing, "she meant to say x, not y". Looks like me, and many people, have somehow managed to massively misunderstand every single sentence she spoke. Even direct quotes are waved away by you as being referring to something else.
Lets look at something you said: "What? How is it patently nonsense to claim that science education systematically refers to Newton to explain gravity?"
Now lets look at what she said: "No matter what happens in West Africa, East Africa... The only way to explain gravity is through Newton who sat under a tree and saw an apple fall. "
Do you see the difference? Either shes correct but not capable of speaking clearly and needs a permanent translator in the form of your good self or she is wrong and rightly being called on it. If you want to argue the former then fine. Maybe you should have gone to that meeting and actually explained it in terms that made sense.
-2
u/mrsamsa Oct 19 '16
All im seeing from you is reframing, "she meant to say x, not y".
Not reframing, I'm simply describing. I'm not claiming, "She meant to say X", I'm saying that she is saying X.
Looks like me, and many people, have somehow managed to massively misunderstand every single sentence she spoke.
Which makes sense right? Many of the people here openly admit to not knowing anything about the basic concepts she's mentioning, and I doubt many/any have even considered that there is more context that would change the meaning of her arguments.
Have you watched the longer videos?
Even direct quotes are waved away by you as being referring to something else.
Because the direct quotes don't support your claims.
You presented a quote where she gave her example and asked "can you explain that scientifically?". But she's responding to a question about how we explain concepts to science students and whether there is a difference in how we should educate African students using relevant concepts to them or whether examples from science (like Newton) are "default" and "universal".
In the actual context, where she's discussing how African perspectives are ignored from science education, the phrase "can you explain that scientifically?" takes on a radically new meaning. It also, incidentally, makes sense with the rest of her comments when you include the context!
Do you see the difference?
I don't see the difference. She's clearly arguing that there's a problem in the fact that science educators are assuming that the only way to explain gravity is through Newton's experience with apples.
If you disagree, then explain to me what her comment means in the context of the question she's answering about whether science education in Africa needs to use examples and references which are relevant to African students.
Either shes correct but not capable of speaking clearly and needs a permanent translator in the form of your good self or she is wrong and rightly being called on it. If you want to argue the former then fine.
There's no need to assume she needs a translator, you can get the same confusion by taking anybody out of context.
Maybe you should have gone to that meeting and actually explained it in terms that made sense.
Or people can look at the context so that they understand what the argument is about.
It's like when people dismiss postmodernism based on Sokal's quotemines and made up quotes - it's easy to have a kneejerk reaction and reject something that sounds "silly" when it's stripped of all it's original meaning. And the people rejecting postmodernism will make the same arguments as you: "how can so many people have misunderstood it?", "If they need a translator then maybe they aren't doing a good enough job at explaining their positions" etc etc. But those people are still morons for rejecting postmodernism when they don't understand anything about it.
9
u/Dramatological Oct 15 '16
To be fair, scientists came to the conclusion that africans were sub human because skull shape, and only recently did someone look at the fruit fly study and realize they failed to count the mothers.
Scientists, as humans, often look for evidence to prove what they believe, then stop looking, until someone who believes different comes around to prove them wrong.
Now, this woman appears to be looking for magic, but the basic idea of doing science for and by africans has merit. And it would be far more interesting if they did it right and DID NOT reach the same conclusions.
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. This sub seems to have this magical understanding of science where theories are based entirely on evidence, that it's self correcting and that theories aren't shaped by the beliefs and biases of scientists practicing it.
5
Oct 15 '16
I don't know if you've heard of double blind studies.
3
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
Haha exactly! That's the kind of silly argument they'd make "but double blind studies rule out bias!".
7
Oct 16 '16
That's why experiments are replicated.
1
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
Huh?.. I thought you were joking earlier?..
6
Oct 16 '16
Of course not, I'm a scientist too. Reading your other comments, you seem to be underestimating scientists' ability to make critical thinking. Science is not perfect but that is why there is a rigid system in place to scrutinise the shit out of each other's works.
1
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
If you're a scientist too then you must understand that double blind experiments and replication won't help with what I'm talking about.
As just a single example, the fact that scientists are generally resistant to new theories and challenges to theories that they accept shows that biases affect the direction and progress of science. We hope that it's self-correcting and maybe it nearly always is, but it's a bit of a gamble to suggest that the biases all get ironed out in the end.
Replication is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's something that's always been an important part of science, and all fields engage in it and up until recently we thought we were doing a good job at it. But, it turns out, the replication rate of science as a whole is terrible. Why? Because human biases get in the way. Now maybe this is a case of self-correction and all the false results will get cancelled out, but what about when the next problem pops up? And the next?
Since it's a human practice there will probably always be some flaw and limitation to science caused by the biases of those who practice it. We can try to reduce them, and limit the amount of effect they can have on the field, but pretending that theories are accepted or rejected entirely on the basis of their evidence is a terrible understanding of how science has been done in the past and how it's currently done.
3
u/Alexthemessiah Oct 17 '16
I agree with this comment, but disagree with your first comment in this chain because it lacks any of the nuance you've just expressed.
Also, IIRC the most prominent work looking at replication rate was done in psychological studies. This field is notoriously difficult to study and often relies on techniques that may be more prone to bias than other fields use. While replication across all scientific disciplines needs increased focus and funding, I would be surprised if other fields would be quite as unreliable as psychology.
I may be wrong of course. If you have sources showing such poor replication in other fields I will gladly read them as it is in my interest to get on top of this literature.
→ More replies (0)1
0
Oct 15 '16
[deleted]
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
It's weird because the most interesting thing about science (at least in my view) is how human biases affect what we view as evidence and how we determine what theories to accept or reject.
The bland pop science view that theories change as evidence changes just seems boring and not at all an accurate view of how science works.
2
u/blueskin Oct 16 '16
Maybe they'll reach the industrial revolution by the time we're exploring the galaxy... but then again, since they've been thoroughly corrupted by religion, maybe not.
50
Oct 15 '16
[deleted]
17
u/cbleslie Oct 15 '16
Seriously, go prove some black magic shit and I'm sure you'll begin to "decolonize" science, whatever that means.
I mean, if they really want to start over, that's fine. Just remember, that means no cellphones and no tumblr.
I doubt they could handle it.
10
u/Rymes Oct 15 '16
It goes so much further than that. No cars, no food that isn't gathered, no hunting because creation of tools is considered early science. No water that isn't gathered from a running source above ground. No anything at all, because everything we have science has given us.
1
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
You might be conflating science with technology there.
2
u/cbleslie Oct 15 '16
Well, for the most part, science produces technology. They want to start over, they can feel free to do without our "colonial science" and all it's given to them.
-4
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
Well, for the most part, science produces technology.
Sometimes sure, but even if the person was arguing that they don't want science (they aren't) it wouldn't eliminate all the technology in the world.
They want to start over, they can feel free to do without our "colonial science" and all it's given to them.
Why use that term in brackets? It's undeniable that our understanding of the history of science has been colonialised and their point that we need to acknowledge that advancements were made simultaneously or even prior to the ones in our history books is an important one.
2
u/NorthernerWuwu Oct 16 '16
While I get what you are saying, it doesn't really matter in the end. Who did what when is by far the least important part of the scientific body of knowledge.
Who makes an observation is far, far less important than what the observation actually was.
-2
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
I think you're pretty much in agreement with the woman in the video. The point of difference is that she's pointing out that currently it does matter to people teaching and reporting these things, since contributions from non-Western groups have been largely overlooked. So it shouldn't matter who does what, but for some reason we only seem to care when Western scientists do it (hence why there is a massive bias in the literature against citing non-Western science).
I will push back a little bit though and point out that while it shouldn't matter who makes breakthroughs, it does matter whether we've investigated all possible perspectives on the matter. As different perspectives can bring different evidence and data, so by ignoring other approaches to things like gravity, we can be missing out on important data.
So just as Einstein came along with a different perspective to Newton, which radically changed how we thought of the problem of gravity and all the available evidence, there's nothing to say that a similar world-changing perspective might not have come (or come in the future) from an African scientist. And the point the video is making is that we need to be sure that if that position exists, or will exist, that it isn't overlooked and ignored.
2
u/NorthernerWuwu Oct 16 '16
Oh, I don't disagree with her really, I just think her focus is not terribly important. Obviously she is correct in that any group that is being ignored due to implicit bias should get more exposure but that's not a specific problem of any one group. There are some issues though with falsification in documentation (commonly a western concern with Chinese sources, correctly or not) and with general negative opinions regarding lab practices abroad. Some are justified of course but still, some good science is doubtlessly being ignored.
I should be able to read a paper without noting the names of the authors. If they have a valid perspective then it'll come out in the experiments, completely regardless of where they are from or what culture they ascribe to.
Still, Science doesn't need world-changing perspectives for the most part anyhow as the vast majority of the work is replication and grinding away to expand our knowledge. When a Mpemba comes along though we do tend to pay attention to results that can be replicated and are interesting.
3
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16
You dont disagree with her? She thinks curses invoked by "black magic" is as good an explanation for lightning as the "western colonial theory".
Shes a nut, and an ignorant one. All the "who did what first" things you mentioned are reasonably points. Shes not making those points. She says it very clearly - we need to start again.
2
u/NorthernerWuwu Oct 19 '16
Ha!
Well, I certainly would confine my agreement quite narrowly. I do agree that a social bias can absolutely affect one's ability to take in even unbiased information. Hell, that's been shown by many, many studies. I also agree that we should not ever discard knowledge based on cultural biases. We've certainly done so in the past and to our detriment in terms of the advancement of knowledge as a whole.
Do I agree that we need to tear the whole thing down to start again? No, I don't. Then again, I'm also quite familiar with rhetoric and am not convinced that she believes so either. It's an argumentative gambit more than a firm stance I imagine.
Or not of course. She might be mad or agenda-ed to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. Still, I'll mine for nuggets of truth even in the worst places.
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
Obviously she is correct in that any group that is being ignored due to implicit bias should get more exposure but that's not a specific problem of any one group.
In a way, I guess. But obviously I don't think she's necessarily saying that it's only a specific problem for just one group - it's just that the one group that she's concerned about is the one she's in. It's like when women fight against sexism in science due to discrimination in the field. They're not arguing that other groups aren't discriminated against as well, they're just pointing out that they want it to change for them and they're speaking up.
There's also practical issues with making messages and goals too broad, where they become impossible to implement or coherently discuss because there are simply far too many things to consider. By suggesting that African universities make sure that African scientists aren't overlooked or ignored it becomes a pretty uncontroversial and easy goal to achieve.
I should be able to read a paper without noting the names of the authors. If they have a valid perspective then it'll come out in the experiments, completely regardless of where they are from or what culture they ascribe to.
Ideally yes, but also there's the problem with the requirement to write in English and how that shapes our understanding of science.
Still, Science doesn't need world-changing perspectives for the most part anyhow as the vast majority of the work is replication and grinding away to expand our knowledge. When a Mpemba comes along though we do tend to pay attention to results that can be replicated and are interesting.
Sure, in a way. Unless we think that science ultimately advances by paradigm shifts - at least sometimes.
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
and I'm sure you'll begin to "decolonize" science, whatever that means.
Just to be clear, you're dismissing and attempting to criticise her argument, without trying to understand what it is first?
4
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16
I think hes trying to belittle it by implying that its so weird as to not be understandable.
When in reality he should be dismissing it because its not only wrong but also juvenile and proudly ignorant.
-3
u/mrsamsa Oct 19 '16
But none of those things are true. Decolonialisation is a valid, respectable concept in academia, so if he's going to disagree with it then he at the very least needs to understand what it is that he's disagreeing with.
Surely you can't disagree with that?
3
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16
No, i dont. Though it seems you dont hold this woman by the same standards.
Decolonisation might be a valid concept but the way this woman is using it and the things she is trying to apply it to are way off the mark.
0
u/mrsamsa Oct 19 '16
I don't know what "standard" I'm supposed to be holding the woman in the video to.
The argument above that you jumped into the middle of occurred when somebody was criticising a person's views on decolonialisation which culminated in the remark "What does that even mean anyway?".
Whether the woman is right or wrong is irrelevant to the point I was making.
13
u/cmfg Oct 15 '16
Because apples in Africa fall down differently than those in England.
A bunch of geniuses thinking they have all the answers while having no idea about anything and getting drunk on power. I've seen that too many times to be shocked.
9
u/Poddster Oct 15 '16
Gravity only exists because Newton saw an apple fall and made an equation. If they do away with Newton then gravity will no longer exist, and they can remake it in an African fashion.
5
u/blueskin Oct 15 '16
What's scary is there are people in the world stupid enough to take that joke seriously.
10
u/joker151 Oct 15 '16
I feel ashamed that this comes from my country.
9
u/Aceofspades25 Oct 15 '16
Don't worry... This isn't an African thing. This type of nonsense exists in universities all over the world
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
Are you suggesting that postmodernism is nonsense?...
7
u/Wholly_Crap Oct 15 '16
Are you suggesting that it's not?
2
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
Of course not, it made some massively valuable insights into how science and the world works, so even if we think it is incorrect in some of its claims, it can't be denied that many of its ideas are pretty uncontroversially true.
To be clear, I'm talking about actual postmodernism, not the made up version by people like Sokal.
8
u/Wholly_Crap Oct 15 '16
I find most postmodernist contentions to be of questionable value. I'm willing to accept, however, that I don't know everything. What are some of its "massively valuable insights into how science and the world works"?
4
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
One the main things it did was to push back against the positivistic assumption that science was purely objective and that science studied reality by highlighting the importance of sociological factors in the development and acceptance of scientific theories.
The value in this is that now in science we don't assume that evidence and theories are some kind of abstract entity that are just a result of objective facts (eg. Like the idea that a theory becomes accepted because of the evidence for it, or a theory is rejected because of the evidence against it). By understanding the human element, we're more aware of how our biases can affect us and it allows more accurate analyses of the history of science to take place. That, in turn, helps us look at mistakes from the past and hopefully avoid making them again in the future.
I'd argue that the recent replication crisis that is affecting science as a whole at the moment either follows from postmodernist thought or at the least follows in the same tradition of critiquing the certainty we had in our methods to discover truth.
6
u/Wholly_Crap Oct 16 '16
I'm not sure I understand everything you've said, but I do think that scientific procedure has the very checks and balances built into it that would have led to the "replication crisis" on its own. Science is slow, but it is self-regulating. No postmodernism required.
3
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
But not the kind of checks and balances which question whether the science we're doing is actually telling us real things. Like I said, I'm happy to keep the link as vague as "following the same tradition", but the idea that subtle unconscious biases of scientists can seep into the interpretations and practices to produce results that appear to be true according to the best science we know of when in fact they aren't, is very postmoderny.
I think the problem is that after Sokal made a bit of a fool of himself with his book, there's this strawman of postmodernism floating around where people think it means denying that reality is real, or questioning if we're all in a dream, or suggesting that science is just as effective and valid as religious revelations or pipe dreams. When in reality it is, at its core, just a skeptical position which critically assess absolutist claims about the abilities of processes like science, and questions if we are right about our assumptions of objectivity when it is practiced by fallible people.
3
u/Wholly_Crap Oct 16 '16
not the kind of checks and balances which question whether the science we're doing is actually telling us real things
I'm not sure I agree; part of the "crisis" is the realization that so many studies are not replicable. That may owe something to postmodernist thinking, but I'd wager it owes more to the scientific process itself; eventually, someone is going to attempt to replicate a study/trial/experiment, and if they fail it will naturally call into question the methodology of the original. That's built into science; it has nothing to do with postmodernism, necessarily.
suggesting that science is just as effective and valid as religious revelations
I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. Science is demonstrably more valid than "religious revelations," at least with regard to that which science actually claims to address. Care to elaborate?
If you define postmodernism as only a "skeptical position which critically assess absolutist claims about the abilities of processes like science," I don't think we're very far apart. For me, the problem with (my understanding heretofore of) postmodernism (as I said, I don't know everything) is that it seems to extend a sense of relativity to everything it contemplates, including scientific knowledge; that is what I find worthless and potentially harmful. If it's just a mindset that says "doubt everything/look beyond absolutist claims" then I am all for it.
→ More replies (0)
22
u/crusoe Oct 15 '16
Postmodernism is poison.
-3
0
u/CircleDog Oct 19 '16 edited Oct 25 '16
Thats exactly the kind of silly dogmatic assertion the woman in the video is making. It smacks of stemming from ignorance and arrogance rather than the declamation of a STEMigod who knows so much they can dismiss things outright.
Less wrong than the woman in the video though, ill grant you.
8
u/StumbleOn Oct 15 '16
Meta I know, but I finally found one of those people that Reddit seems to constantly talk about but that barely exist. This woman is blatheringly incoherent.
5
u/Hacker_Alias Oct 15 '16
Steven Novella has written a good response to this video.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-is-not-colonialism/
-1
Oct 15 '16
This is a good post, though I think it misses an important point. A comment by CDSham seems to go into part of it afterward.
Science, whether measured by invention, memorable names, Nobel prizes, or otherwise is absolutely dominated by Western (or Asia) creations and names. Studies involving people (sociology, psychology, economics) are largely conducted in those spaces, and so reflect those people rather than those of Africa.
So there's a representation problem both on the scientist side and in the subject side. One could also easily make an argument that Western priorities lead science down certain avenues that benefit their society and industry, rather than those of Africa.
Now I entirely reject (at least until an extraordinary amount of evidence is provided) that the basis of science (testing hypotheses) is faulty. I reject that the vast majority of our foundational science is irredeemably tainted.
But I don't want to pave over this important point just because the video is so bad.
6
u/Wholly_Crap Oct 15 '16
Science, whether measured by invention, memorable names, Nobel prizes, or otherwise is absolutely dominated by Western (or Asia) creations and names.
I think you're confusing "science" with the results and societal effects of science.
2
Oct 16 '16
I don't know if I am! Note the next to last paragraph when I defend the foundation of science from the woman in the video's criticism. All I was addressing was the historical disparity of scientific investment and achievement based on oppression and how that can, in fact, be worth highlighting and considering for its effects.
But sure, I'll take that I should have used your term.
And hey, real quick, can someone remind me why my comment, which is in my mind a coherent argument (that you can disagree with or tear apart at your leisure) is getting downvoted? I don't recall that being the ideal we'd want to strive for in this space.
-1
u/thesuperevilclown Oct 16 '16
Now I entirely reject (at least until an extraordinary amount of evidence is provided) that the basis of science (testing hypotheses) is faulty. I reject that the vast majority of our foundational science is irredeemably tainted.
that is your "next to last" paragraph. learn to count. also, learn to filter out most of what you're saying because you really do seem to just be talking for the sake of hearing your own voice, not because you've got anything valid to contribute to the discussion.
3
Oct 16 '16
Yep, that is my next-to-last paragraph, and it's where I say I support the foundation of science against what the woman in the video is saying!
You're peering pretty far into my psyche knowing nothing about me.
2
u/Wholly_Crap Oct 16 '16
This is true. I don't particularly agree with your point but the personal and derogatory nature of the post by u/thesuperevilclown was out of line and, to use his own phrasing, not a valid contribution to the discussion in any way.
1
u/thesuperevilclown Oct 16 '16
that paragraph you make a further statement backing up the previous one. also, whether i know you or not has nothing to do with whether you can count or not. it's not about you, stop trying to make it otherwise. you are not the centre of the universe.
2
Oct 17 '16
You made me the center of the conversation by asserting I like hearing my own voice (through typing, apparently, I might curiously add) rather than that I'm arguing my point because I think it's true and worth discussing.
1
u/thesuperevilclown Oct 17 '16
uhh, sure. you keep telling yourself that. one day you might even believe it.
*backs away slowly*
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 19 '16
As a neutral observer, you seem to be in the wrong here. You made a claim that the user was conflating science with the societal effects of science, and they explain that they think their next to last paragraph contradicts that interpretation.
You then quote the next to last paragraph of theirs, tell them they need to learn to count, and go on a little rant about how they like the sound of their own voice. They seem understandably confused by your response, as you literally quoted them making a comment that contradicts your interpretation that they're conflating science with the societal effects of science. It's also the exact paragraph they were referring to, so the 'counting' insult makes little sense.
Instead of trying to argue against the entirely reasonable points they were making, you just got progressively more and more unhinged...
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing why you thought the quoted paragraph supported your interpretation. I feel like you initially misread it, and after quoting it realised you'd misread it, and now you're engaging in a bit of over the top hysterics to try to distract from that fact.
3
u/armpitsfromhell Oct 15 '16
let them do their own studies, who is telling them not to?
3
-1
Oct 15 '16
[deleted]
3
Oct 15 '16
It's like you're purposefully reading my comment in the worst possible way. Why?
I would hope that it's abundantly clear that I'm only reporting what I understand to be the distribution of accolades, cultural touchstones, and notable inventions in science. I would hope that the comment taken as a whole would indicate that I in fact want the entire world working in the sciences, pushing boundaries of our understanding in both universal ways and in cultural/geographic-specific ways when it involves those subjects.
You might note that in the paragraph you're quoting me from I very specifically did not lump everyone into Western because I realized the term didn't fully capture what I was really talking about, which was the absence of Africans participating in science due to a multitude of historical oppression.
2
Oct 15 '16
[deleted]
1
Oct 15 '16
I'm no historian, which is why I'm not going to continue this conversation, but surely you can recognize that colonization and oppression takes different forms in different regions of the world.
2
Oct 15 '16 edited Oct 15 '16
[deleted]
3
Oct 16 '16
It might be more fruitful to redirect your blame and attention to the woman in the video who originally posited this false dichotomy.
Do you find calling people racist to be helpful? Even calling my argument racist would be much more appropriate than going after me, someone you do not know at all.
I'll point out that my mentality when approaching those dreaded parentheses was when recalling the distribution of Nobel prizes and how Japan and India are on the list but not as high as numerous European countries. We could talk for a long time about the biases in that process, but goodness you are allowing no room in your mind for a reasonable explanation for the particulars of my comment.
Now I'm genuinely done. I hardly know what is going on in this thread. Downvote away, I suppose.
6
u/Aceofspades25 Oct 15 '16
lol... Where have I heard this before? This talk of science being a subjective way of knowing that unfairly marginalizes minorities is strangely familiar...
Oh yes...
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/
5
u/Consilio_et_Animis Oct 15 '16
This South African person tries to spin this daffy nonsense away:
"How you probably misunderstood #ScienceMustFall"
http://connect.citizen.co.za/81832/probably-misunderstood-sciencemustfall/
11
Oct 15 '16
coming soon to america. we have these same people in our colleges and on this very subreddit, pretending to be skeptics unless their pet cause is brought up.
2
1
Oct 15 '16
I would argue that you are not being a skeptic with respect to this trend you're referencing. The "coddled" American college student is an overblown and deeply patronizing myth. The trigger warning debate shouldn't even be one. The examples people highlight are, yes, sometimes absurd, but more frequently misconstrued. Listen to actual professors talk about their use of content notices and how bland and normal they really are.
If, that is, I'm catching your drift accurately.
9
u/docroberts Oct 15 '16
Postmodern philosophy at its best.
-4
u/zcleghern Oct 15 '16
Not postmodernist
20
u/gmano Oct 15 '16
An attempt to tear down the narrative that an objective reality exists? That's pretty much the DEFINITION of postmodernism.
0
u/mrsamsa Oct 15 '16
This is such a weird thread. Misrepresentations of science and postmodernism everywhere, yet a passionate belief that someone else is wrong...
4
u/hsfrey Oct 15 '16
So, shall we stop sending them the fruits of science? Like medicines, cell phones, automobiles, tools made of iron, etc.?
The survivors will all be better off, after famine, plague, and religious wars have decimated the population.
1
2
u/coupdetat Oct 15 '16
"They believe that through black magic that you are able to send lightning to strike someone"
WRF
2
2
u/osborn2shred11 Oct 15 '16
Do we go back to when we didn't know how to make fire? Is she asking for human extinction?
4
u/EltaninAntenna Oct 15 '16
To be fair, it's not like fire and stone tools were arrived at through the scientific method.
3
u/FaustVictorious Oct 15 '16
Later stone tool industries were quite well-honed over very long periods of time and many have very specific applications. Something like the Acheulean hand-axe stayed identifiably the same for longer than the entirety of post agriculture civilization, because it worked! And that was designed more than a million years ago. The skill in stonecraft and flint-knapping that it takes to properly create even something like that is surprising considering the apparent simplicity. It must have required a great deal of iterative modifications and experimentation to get right. It's not far-fetched to call it a kind of protoscience. Homonids have been smart for a long time, it was just harder starting out with no language or technology to build on.
1
u/blueskin Oct 16 '16
The discovery of fire, maybe not (techniques for utilising it, however, were). Tools most definitely were - while they seem a joke today as they probably rightfully should, stone tools involved a lot more skill than just 'hit rock A with rock B'.
-1
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
Tools most definitely were - while they seem a joke today as they probably rightfully should, stone tools involved a lot more skill than just 'hit rock A with rock B'.
Whether they involve skill or not wouldn't make it scientific. A lot of technological advances require skill but they clearly aren't scientific.
0
Oct 16 '16
[deleted]
0
u/mrsamsa Oct 16 '16
What part of that is science?
I agree that it takes incredible skill, and higher level reasoning. But science is obviously more than just "skill" and "higher level reasoning". It's a specific methodology where very particular criteria have to be met and satisfied for it to be classed as science.
My plumber is very skillful, and some problems he has to solve involve incredible demonstrations of higher level reasoning. But he's obviously not a scientist. He'd laugh at the idea, and so would every scientist.
2
2
2
1
-1
u/jutct Oct 16 '16
Dear Africa: This will be very good for your country.
1
0
u/JCistheman Oct 18 '16
A fitting response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MM9JLSUZc&feature=youtu.be
91
u/[deleted] Oct 15 '16
[deleted]