Liberals don’t see it as problematic for science when journals back liberal candidates — but the future of science depends on them recognizing the issue with it.
What actually causes distrust is the inability to reproduce much of the clinical, medical, "social science", etc. research. Political endorsements only reinforce the distrust. COVID showed a lot of us the insidious lengths politicians would go to pressure big tech to label sound scientific opinion as "misinformation" and justify censorship.
The AAUP made a serious mistake endorsing Sayed, who is, if not an outright communist and terrorist-supporter, far too close to those groups for the the electorate's liking.
Re funding under the current administration:
-funds for research are not a human right;
-the administration is trying to rectify DEI, which is toxic, and given the scale of that problem, mistakes will be made but the goal is essential.
What an insightful article on the damage done when those with credentialed authority collapse the complex contentious trade-offs embedded in the setting of public policy into declarations of "the one right answer" (as public health officials did with the best of intentions about school closings during CoVid). The distinction between "Epistocrat" and "Honest Broker" is an important one.
The challenge of who to empower in the discussions needed to set public policy in a robust democracy and the process to be used in these discussions is the topic of "The Crisis of Expertise" by Gil Eyal.
Short and to the point, it describes the options, along with the strengths and shortcomings of each. Eyal is no "Epistocrat". He has the humility to avoid imposing his set of trade-offs and providing the "One Answer".
"The Crisis of Expertise" is an important book for anyone concerned with the role that science and other sorts of expertise should play in setting public policies that are both effective and widely accepted.
Your piece does a great job explaining why people trust science less over time. I find it concerning when endorsing a candidate stands in the way.
What actually causes distrust is the inability to reproduce much of the clinical, medical, "social science", etc. research. Political endorsements only reinforce the distrust. COVID showed a lot of us the insidious lengths politicians would go to pressure big tech to label sound scientific opinion as "misinformation" and justify censorship.
The AAUP made a serious mistake endorsing Sayed, who is, if not an outright communist and terrorist-supporter, far too close to those groups for the the electorate's liking.
Re funding under the current administration:
-funds for research are not a human right;
-the administration is trying to rectify DEI, which is toxic, and given the scale of that problem, mistakes will be made but the goal is essential.
What an insightful article on the damage done when those with credentialed authority collapse the complex contentious trade-offs embedded in the setting of public policy into declarations of "the one right answer" (as public health officials did with the best of intentions about school closings during CoVid). The distinction between "Epistocrat" and "Honest Broker" is an important one.
The challenge of who to empower in the discussions needed to set public policy in a robust democracy and the process to be used in these discussions is the topic of "The Crisis of Expertise" by Gil Eyal.
Short and to the point, it describes the options, along with the strengths and shortcomings of each. Eyal is no "Epistocrat". He has the humility to avoid imposing his set of trade-offs and providing the "One Answer".
"The Crisis of Expertise" is an important book for anyone concerned with the role that science and other sorts of expertise should play in setting public policies that are both effective and widely accepted.