Is that, in principle, any different from math or physics given how those have esoteric sub disciplines incomprehensible even to other experts within the discipline but outside the sub field?
-
-
Replying to @yungneocon
I think its more tragic because ppl assume politics is easy / common sense. So they can attach to any credentialed expert willing to make strong statements they agree with. Confirmation seeking seems harder in something like physics. Although
@AstroKatie’s FAQs suggest im wrong.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist @AstroKatie
THAT I def agree with--because sociology, poli sci, the humanities, etc., are largely written in general language (as opposed to mathematical symbols, like physics & econ) people think that they aren't allowed to have their own jargon, methods, styles, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
So we enter this uncanny valley where people demand that things like social science & humanities be relevant to everyday life & written in plain language (which no one makes of physics, or of, say, sports!) but then get mad when it disconfirms their hypotheses.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yungneocon @generativist
So, people either criticize it as "proving stuff that's common sense" or being "total bullshit" because it does the opposite, and has its own methodologies and styles. It's really a sort of petty way that people popularly interact with the Soc Scis & Humanities.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @yungneocon
Yea. And I think it’s hard to do good
#scicomm in that space because you’re always crowded out by the youtube army (eg jbp).1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist
On the supply side, one has the fact that elites, mass media, etc don't call upon socs, anthros, humanists, geographers, as much as they do econs, psychs & poli scis (in descending order), and, on the demand side, one has the confirmation bias issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yungneocon @generativist
YouTubers confirm people's prior biases and intuitions, but veil them as making them smart, or even edgy & renegade. Meanwhile, good social science should do almost the exact opposite--disconfirm said ideas, but in an understandable way.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yungneocon @generativist
Altho, this happens to a degree in the science journalism stuff too, it's not as tho there aren't competent public advocates of everything from evolutionary biology to quantum mechanics, but who gets promoted & selected is always going to be the sensational, yet bias confirming.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yungneocon @generativist
That's how the Neil deGrasse Tysons, R. Dawkins, S. Pinkers, and L. Krauss' of the world get made lol.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Any good reads you have for proposed corrective measures?
-
-
Replying to @generativist
uhhh I think these issues are deep structural ones, all we can do, on our side, is try our best, really, but the incentive effects are going to be incredibly strong, unless academics form a kind of big union or something
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yungneocon
Yea :/ this is kinda the space I want to play in after
#phdone — better connectomes0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.