Okay. Then let's censor science, and put an asterisk next to every published study: "If the results had been different, they would not have been published."
And when someone claims "research shows your prejudice is unfounded", one can justifiably answer with "because the findings have been cherry-picked to support a pre-determined conclusion. So I will trust my gut instinct, because the scientists have admitted their research is subordinate to propaganda."
Though I have a feeling social science will try to be very discreet about what kind of filtering they're doing, and will hope that, when they disseminate findings they like, that we will have forgotten they're self-confessed propagandists first, and scientists second.
If you read carefully I'm actually not proposing any specific course and I think the reality will be nuanced and highly context-specific.
What I am opposing is the idea that researchers should be completely disinterested in, even ignore, what other elements are interested in their work and how they might use it.
The consensus in this comment section is that that sort of ignorance is itself an ideal, and I think that's very wrong and has lead to obvious harms in the past. Research on any domain of human activity is a political act and produces a political product, the researchers need to be aware of that and actively participate in that part of the process as well. Wishing or pretending it were otherwise is dangerous.
> What I am opposing is the idea that researchers should be completely disinterested in, even ignore, what other elements are interested in their work and how they might use it.
Why?
> The consensus in this comment section is that that sort of ignorance is itself an ideal, and I think that's very wrong and has lead to obvious harms in the past.
You think that because you have biases, like all humans do. You say harms can arise. Let’s try to do an exercise. It’s the late 40s early 50s and research is finally starting to show there are, in fact, no real biological races of humans. We are one human race. The dutiful scientist at that time considers the society he is in, the notions of morality he has and decides it would be harmful to publish his research. Who knows what some crazy extremists will do with this fact. They might give the blacks rights, they might rile them up, they might they might even allow miscegenation! Bear in mind, all these were societal harms at that time!
Is this the future you wish? Or this scenario doesn’t count because it’s the wrong politics? Have we found the end all be all of morality and must now protect it at all costs, even from facts if need be?
> Research on any domain of human activity is a political act and produces a political product, the researchers need to be aware of that and actively participate in that part of the process as well
I disagree. The way I see it, there is no politics in science. Science is not a set of beliefs. It’s a process. It’s a method of observing empirical reality and producing methods to describe it.
> Wishing or pretending it were otherwise is dangerous.
Regardless of the rest of this conversation, we should at least ban the publishing of obvious bullshit with no attempt to establish causality as science. This is in that category.
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.
