I'm curious what a less patriarchal, less-oppressive-in-the-usual-ways science would look like. The scientific community purports openness, collaboration, perhaps a naive-blindness-as-inclusiveness... Am I right in thinking that a big part of a better scientific community and process would be just living up to most of the values it claims?
I've spent over a decade in the atheist, skeptic, and secular spaces, and I experience the same thing you have of observing purported rational thinkers abandoning those tools when a belief aligns or doesn't with their preconceived notions. It's helped me recognize which leaders have values I appreciate to their core, and which may not.
"I still recoil a little at the sound of my voice bringing up anything but how much good science can do"
This makes me imagine the wide gap between the ideals of what a positive scientific community can create, and the practical realities and inequities that plague it (and the rest of our world). When talking to this or that audience, how much do you share from each end of the spectrum?
Again I can compare to my ongoing presence in the niche I find most comfortable in nonreligious spaces. Some folks won't be dissuaded from sticking around if I share the anti-feminist revolt 13 years ago that revealed most of the Big Figures as unwelcoming, hostile, and curiously uninterested in critical thought on these subjects. And for some folks I want them to experience the good that's here without showing them the conflict and the truly amazing people ousted because the cis straight white men didn't care to grok the needs of folks different than them.
"I was absolutely floored by a few of them sharing that they were considering studying physics because of classes we had once shared."
I am absolutely NOT surprised by this and am very happy about it.
You sharing about yourself to your students is a great way to end: answering my first question in a small way by modeling, just for yourself and a few dozen people, what a kinder, inclusive physics can be. And you are still that advocate with one foot there and the other in journalism.
I’m so delighted to discover your Substack. I was starting to feel pretty alone in my criticism of science and scientists, in the very veins you describe in this post, and I think I’ve just been hanging out in the wrong spaces. Thanks for sharing your personal story in this. I touch on some of the same aspects you cover in my recent post, from an ecology perspective. If you have a chance to read it I’d love to hear your thoughts. (Also note in the comments section someone is being hard on journalists, which I’ve been addressing but just FYI maybe a trigger warning?) https://open.substack.com/pub/andreajoyadams/p/intellectual-humility-and-the-quest?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I'm curious what a less patriarchal, less-oppressive-in-the-usual-ways science would look like. The scientific community purports openness, collaboration, perhaps a naive-blindness-as-inclusiveness... Am I right in thinking that a big part of a better scientific community and process would be just living up to most of the values it claims?
I've spent over a decade in the atheist, skeptic, and secular spaces, and I experience the same thing you have of observing purported rational thinkers abandoning those tools when a belief aligns or doesn't with their preconceived notions. It's helped me recognize which leaders have values I appreciate to their core, and which may not.
"I still recoil a little at the sound of my voice bringing up anything but how much good science can do"
This makes me imagine the wide gap between the ideals of what a positive scientific community can create, and the practical realities and inequities that plague it (and the rest of our world). When talking to this or that audience, how much do you share from each end of the spectrum?
Again I can compare to my ongoing presence in the niche I find most comfortable in nonreligious spaces. Some folks won't be dissuaded from sticking around if I share the anti-feminist revolt 13 years ago that revealed most of the Big Figures as unwelcoming, hostile, and curiously uninterested in critical thought on these subjects. And for some folks I want them to experience the good that's here without showing them the conflict and the truly amazing people ousted because the cis straight white men didn't care to grok the needs of folks different than them.
"I was absolutely floored by a few of them sharing that they were considering studying physics because of classes we had once shared."
I am absolutely NOT surprised by this and am very happy about it.
You sharing about yourself to your students is a great way to end: answering my first question in a small way by modeling, just for yourself and a few dozen people, what a kinder, inclusive physics can be. And you are still that advocate with one foot there and the other in journalism.
I’m so delighted to discover your Substack. I was starting to feel pretty alone in my criticism of science and scientists, in the very veins you describe in this post, and I think I’ve just been hanging out in the wrong spaces. Thanks for sharing your personal story in this. I touch on some of the same aspects you cover in my recent post, from an ecology perspective. If you have a chance to read it I’d love to hear your thoughts. (Also note in the comments section someone is being hard on journalists, which I’ve been addressing but just FYI maybe a trigger warning?) https://open.substack.com/pub/andreajoyadams/p/intellectual-humility-and-the-quest?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web