This is also true. Palatable hypotheses are accepted with weak evidence.
Ideologies distort science mostly through assigning impossible burdens of proof to any hypotheses whose empirical support would render the ideologies instantly ridiculous.
-
-
-
Or ya’ll could just read The Republic.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think _impossible_ or totally unrealistic burdens of proof are also a big problem though ... makes it hard to attract grant funding, students, and collaborators for unpalatable research, leading to a catch-22.
-
The problem is *asymmetric* burdens: skepticism is good when it's applied equally, regardless of antecedent ideology. For the kinds of things
@primalpoly mentions, it is applied asymmetrically: ideologically heterodox hypotheses have a higher burden than do orthodox ones.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
'Social construction of gender' vs. empirical evidence of evolved sex differences across thousands of species.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is one of the most popular and influential recent versions of the social constructivist view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions_of_Gender …
-
80/20 men/women accepted yearly for International Economic Relationships specialty; 1500 women candidates; 4 with French/History or Geography acceptance. (I was the first on French/History exam); after, 1/2
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
More so, I should think, by making those hypotheses hard to even imagine. As Wittgenstein put it, a man is imprisoned in a room even when the door is unlocked, if it never occurs to him to pull it rather than push.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.