Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think I still largely disagree with what you wrote. I do agree that the thesis could be more clearly written to say that objectivity and rigor are not /purely/ harmful.

Their definitions of objectivity and rigor are quite similar to ones you'd find in a dictionary.

In the intro, the author writes "However, long-standing values and practices rooted in racism, ableism, and classism are ingrained in the fabric of research, leaving many researchers unaware of the harm they are causing." To me, this statement does not say "rigor and objectivity are only harmful," it says "rigor and objectivity have a harmful component."

Of course, the body of the article is mostly evidence to support the thesis. Since the thesis does not claim that objectivity and rigor are purely harmful, there's no need to spend any ink on the benefits of those things.

In the conclusion, it is reiterated that "research can be a tool for positive change, but it can also cause harm." Yes, the claims are bold (especially out of context!), but this is a reasonable treatment of the topic and your criticism is coming at it a bit sideways.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: