Posted on 04/21/2017 10:37:08 AM PDT by rlmorel
March For Science
The non-partisan March for Science celebrates the discovery, understanding, and sharing of scientific knowledge as crucial to the success, health, and safety of the human race. Thousands are expected to participate in Boston and across the country, with the main event happening on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
Reading the "About Us" part of the web site, I saw this:
Science based on diversity: Diversity Statement
"We are committed to making science accessible to everyone and encouraging people from diverse backgrounds and experiences to pursue science careers. Diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams and produce broader, more creative, and stronger work. We believe that regardless of past practices, science should never be used to disenfranchise or marginalize groups of people. Rather, all persons have the right to pursue and enjoy the fruits of science regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status. Science belongs to all people, and should be done for all people.
Diverse representation through our speakers and volunteers is only part of our commitment to intersectional inclusion. We want to also use the moment to discuss the existing systemic problems underlying academia, cultural norms, and scientific institutions with relation to science. It is important to address the reasons why there is a lack of diversity in the first place and develop holistic solutions for fixing systems that result in inequality.
To this end we employ a range of outreach volunteers who have two goals: ensure that people, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status are welcome at our event and to work as messengers to bring the public’s concerns to the organizers. We see outreach as a dialogue and recognize that often our role is not to speak but rather to step aside and listen.
We also welcome discussions and academic research on ways to improve access to participation in and benefitting from science. Our speakers and action items that will be released after the event will reflect this concern."
Science is open to all, regardless of all the politically correct categories. Problem is, scientific endeavors have a hard time carrying a non-performer on the team. If you think that Newton’s science is no good because he wasn’t the right kind of PC category, you will not do well on a project.
There is science. You can’t put a racial adjective before it, like “black science.” Or a reproductive strategy category, like “gay science.”
Math is at the basis of all sciences. If you have creative ideas about math you won’t make it in science.
In other words, affirmative action in science doesn’t work very well. Obviously there are affirmative action promotions and hires, but they are easily recognized as failures.
Responding to this: “Diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams and produce broader, more creative, and stronger work.”
Since science teams don’t discriminate, and welcome anyone who can perform to their rigorous standards, there will be people from all backgrounds on the team, in other words, they will be “diverse” without any help from anyone.
Who is against science. It has changed the world. We discover the atom and we have cheap power and tremendous bombs. Someone invents the laser and we end up with pointers, dvd player and efficient headlights.
And then there is medicine...
But I’m no fan of politicized junk science. It is anathema to real science.
Saw this advertised on the Society for Neuroscience website. When I joined in the dark ages, it was a highly respected organization. In the last 25 years,it has been taken over by extreme left wing radicals.
But the Chemistry Dept. is full of Chinese women and the computer science dept is full of Indians and Chinese and Jews.
Isn’t that already nearly 100% diverse? Oh, I see there are no black women who they can control in science. They’re having trouble forcing white scientists to lie about global whining. I see. We need some mulatto pseudo scientist to trick into lying to the public.
Actually, a diverse mix of stupid people and intelligent people is sure to give you good results; better than if they were all intelligent. At least that’s the consensus (amongst the stupid).
LOL, I don’t have time to jump back into my lunchtime thread, but...I will say that I agree with you, if you substitute “people with commonsense” for “stupid people”!
I suspect that a lot of people on here feel exactly as I do about the word “diversity”.
It used to be useful...it was good, it had positive connotations with it. Diversity in opinions, approaches, findings, etc.
Now, just hearing the word “diversity” has all negative connotations.
When I hear diversity (even in the correct context) I think ignorance, emotion, tyranny, incompetence, lowered standards.
Sounds like a movement to make science fit into the self-created reality du jur ...
The left would say "Who is against DIVERSITY IN science" with the same intent they say "Who is against doing what is right for the children?"
My son graduated from Purdue with his Chem E in 2015. His commencement ceremony was all Engineering disciplines. A few women, some African blacks, and lots of Asians. Very few American blacks, and none of them in Chemical, Nuclear, Electrical and Computer, or Aeronautical/Aerospace disciplines. The math in most of tbose fields is brutal, and the math does not care about “diversity.”
This is just more lib/commie claptrap. That is my unbiased scientific analysis, something you won't get at the rallies.
Scientists To Rally On Earth Day To Protest Trump Cuts, Views
Unionized Scientists March in Protest of Attacks on Science and Jobs
That sounds about right...I have a BS in Chemistry, and taking Physical Chemistry was at the extreme margins of what I was capable of understanding...that was hard enough for me.
I have never, ever understood this concept of trying to push women (or anyone else) into the STEM fields. Why? Just to have them there? They make a big deal about women being underrepresented because they are “discouraged” from entering those fields, but when I was in school decades ago, I didn’t see any discouragement going on.
I think there are many people who want to see something a certain way, so they use pretzel logic to make it “true” in their heads.
Those are not people I want engaged in “science”.
Thanks! I am going back to those links later to vacuum some of the cartoons there...
I was unaware of this march. It did not surprise me that I got this email with the link from a given person, she completely seems the type who would think this event is a great thing.
If you are a Chemical Engineer and you get the temperature/pressure controls set wrong, the plant blows up. It doesn’t take into account your age, sexual orientaion, gender, gender identity or skin color. It still blows up just the same.
To be honest, they might be different marches. I just jumped on it to get those links in here. Somehow I doubt that there are multiple “science marches” going on simultaneously though.
The very term “unionized scientist” strikes me as unscientific.
This is a march for Lysenko-ism, nothing less.
Nothing more than a Man Made GloBULLchit March.
Except they have no interest in real Science. They have aninterest in wrapping their emotion based poltical dogma in a fake claim of “science” to silence any honest discussion of the utter lack of actual scientific validation for their infantile absurd pseudo science opinions.
Same question for you. Where are the facts to back up the opinions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.