Not QTing, because this is Bsky. But there's an economist arguing that university research should be "objective" and "neutral" "apolitical" and discover "the truth.' Who defines what those concepts mean? What happens when there's good-faith disagreement about them? Are those debates allowed?
Human beings aren’t ever entirely neutral and objective. Nor should we be.
Think you forgot "evidence-based" and "data-driven" - all of which, of course, begs the question of *who* collects such data and evidence. The nature of research is, by definition, interrogating the currently "accepted truth" to ask whether (or not) it continues to reflect the data and evidence.🤔
Economics has not properly engaged with postmodernism and remains resolutely modernist
The above skeet is absolutely the most polite way I could make my point. I am (no joke) going to go get myself a cookie for not posting my actual thoughts. I'm so tired of these guys.
Like, a large part of my research has been looking at how philosophers and scientists in the long 19thC confused each other and fought with each other about what the word "objective" even means. Show me a guy who thinks it's simple, and I'll show you a guy who doesn't know anything.
"Guy who doesn’t understand anything says you shouldn’t either." is how @hypervisible.blacksky.app put it recently (in a distinct but all too related context)
Well, now I don't deserve the cookie, but I'm eating it anyway. Hobnobs rule.
I think debate should always be allowed, as long as it takes the form of civil discourse and sticks to verifiable facts. "Because God says so" is not a valid argument.
I work in genetics now and I sometimes have to remind basic scientist trainees that their work is not objective or neutral.
In a way, I get it! Thinking through those concepts isn't everyone's expertise, and that's okay! But, uh, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to make arguments that hinge on the concepts you don't understand. That's why you'll never catch me making arguments in genetics.
And a good part of economics specifically is about learning (e.g. Bayesian learning) so if that’s you’re domain I think you really ought to engage with these ideas
Argh *your
I think one of the hardest things for young scientists to learn is that your findings only apply to your methodology, and aren't universal truths. The second thing I think it's hard for young scientists to learn is you will be wrong a LOT more than you will be right in this field.