A lot of people are posting a video by Sabine Hossenfelder right now, and I'm not going to comment on the video or the points and discussion, but I wanted to post this video detailing her problematic views on trans issues, how she promoted (in a biased-centrist way) the harmful, TERF-associated, and unfounded view that gender affirming care for trans kids is a social contagion leading to "rapid onset of gender dysphoria," while making claims that transitioning before puberty is harmful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw Also there's a line where she offhand belittles people who say early gender affirming care saves lives
"Whether or not she meant to, she repeatedly used a misleading rhetorical device to elevate transphobic talking points to the same level as scientific evidence, and she did that in front of a very large audience"
For me the answer is yes, despite all the problems, for two reasons.
Firstly, I'm lucky enough that I do have considerable freedom to work on the things that I'm interested in. If I was more interested in success or if I was on a 'soft money' position and forced to chase constant grants, I don't know if that would be true. But, such luck is rare.
Secondly, as a socialist I would feel very uncomfortable spending my creative energy on most of the non-academic things I'm qualified for: advertising and surveillance (i.e. tech companies), finance, or startups (making venture capitalists even richer). I could imagine academia getting bad enough that I'd make that choice, but for me it's not there yet. I completely understand that it is that bad for others and I mean no criticism of them.
In a way I suppose this is a sort of defence of academia, but it's a half hearted one at best. I think it's absolutely tragic and depressing that academia has become like this. Doing research should be one of the most joyful and creative things anyone could do with their lives.
I don’t deny anyone’s experience. Thus story is horrible and I believe that all this happened to her.
That said, I’m worried about encouraging the next gen to watch this video as representative of academia and decide if they want to sign up. I certainly don’t agree that all the statements in the video about science at large are true!. Certainly if I experienced what she experienced, I would leave too. The thing I’d like to emphasize is that we aren’t all experiencing that (and this is why we stay; we’re not suffering hopelessly). I would go as far as to say with confidence that hers is an extreme case.
I acknowledge that I’m coming from a position of good fortune here, surrounded by other fortunate people. And we have to be careful about survivor bias, absolutely. But let’s also be equally careful about making academia sound like a horror show. (I suspect that wasn’t your intent here! But could be interpreted that way maybe?)
Academia isn't about knowledge discovery; it's about money making.
Science is a money making machine in which students and postdocs are burnt out to bring in money for the institution.
Most of academic research that your taxes pay for is almost certainly bullshit.
...
I'm not claiming that she isn't raising some important issues about the scientific pipeline and how women/families are treated. These are important and we need to address them! But by mixing them in with these over-the-top (and I would say misleading and inaccurate) statements - I just don't see how that's productive.
Everyone, drop what you are doing - SPURIOUS CORRELATION now has a companion site, SPURIOUS SCHOLAR - that WRITES AN ACADEMIC PAPER based on the spurious correlation! Because "if p < 0.05, why not publish?" 😂
@BayesForDays
Trying to parse that at the end of an exceedingly long day (and I thank you for that momentary distraction!). Should I infer that it is creepy when they aren't rich? Or when they don't bury? Or when they do so but in someone else's yard? Or are all of these inferences in the class of counterfactual errors?! Dr. Cass, please pray tell ....
Today I discovered that there are certain "high profile" professors who are regularly courted for (and strategically accept) coauthorship on papers, with minimal effort or work, solely to increase the likelihood that the paper will be accepted at a top tier journal.
This is basically the Trump business model applied to science.
Is there like a standard process for like "hey I noticed you made exactly the same argument as me using the same primary refs without citing me after we talked about this a bunch of times, would you mind adding a citation"
I dont like to think I "own" any ideas, and obviously it could be coincidence from working in the same space, but it does get tiring because it happens to me all the time, I think partially bc I self publish and institutionally brainwashed ppl dont think that "counts," and it would be nice to feel respected by people I respect.
First, about the notion that nothing @jonny does is very unique. Ummm …I respectfully disagree. Consider that SFN poster and everything associated. I dare you to point to a second like it. (And many of us admire that, a lot). Understood that this particular issue might be a bit different. Just saying …
Second, I’m authentically sad that this is happening, given how enthusiastically you fight for principles in such an open way.
So maybe a few more of us can work in a legit @jonny citation into our next paper to make the (screaming) universe a bit more right.