Alex WellersteinVerified account

There seems to be a lot confusion in the replies here regarding what Audra is saying — which is an entirely uncontroversial statement within the academic disciplines that study how science works now and in the past (e.g., the History, Anthropology, & Sociology of Science).https://twitter.com/ColdWarScience/status/1017211382176059392 …

Also, I don't think there is any evidence that Rutherford's discovery of the nucleus was political..nor have I ever sen any evidence that the early quantum theory .was impacted by politics....perhpas the tweet pertians to technology more than to science

Cormac, you're I believe misunderstanding "political" again. But at a basic level, with early QM: why was it that early QM was overrepresented by Jewish practitioners? Because (as I am sure you know) they were excluded from experimental work for racial reasons.

No, that is one possible reason, beloved by STS scholars. Jewish theoreticians thrived in many other places where they were not discriminated against. Again, you are talking about the reaction to discoveries, not the discoveries themselves....do you ever listen to a physicist?

Discrimination against Jews in higher education was widespread even into the 1950s, even in America — surely you are aware of this? But anyway, surely you are not going to deny that the pervasive racism and sexism somehow didn't apply to areas of science?

(And to ask your snarky question — I've listened to many a physicist, Cormac! Some of my best colleagues are physicists. And some of my favorite historians are physicists, too. But I also listen to lots of different forms of expertise. All part of the job, alas.)

I am saying that the context of the discoveries is itself necessarily shaped by the context in which the work is done. Full stop. It might be subtle, it might be extreme. Depends on the circumstance. But it's there. Hard to imagine what a context-free discovery would look like.