DIRE question

[writingprof]

No, no, no.  Nobody is seriously suggesting that crap for chemistry, physics, or any related topics.

You are incorrect.  Furthermore, you're committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. 

You:  "Nobody is seriously suggesting that crap."
Them: "We suggest that crap."
You:  "Your suggestion isn't serious."

Curriculum "decolonization" is being suggested in the STEM fields.  Whether or not we believe those suggestions to be serious, I assure you that they are seriously meant, and the people making them may very well win.

[dismalist]

But there is indeed debate over these changes leading to a reduction in rigor, at least at the R1 schools I am familiar with. Structural things like eliminating GREs, eliminating candidacy/qual exams for grad students, lowering/eliminating GPA requirements for declaring major. But also curriculum things like focus on concepts over detailed calculations, programming over analytic math, and removing the most difficult courses from the list of required classes (both undergrad and grad levels).

I had not heard of such, but am not surprised. These are perverse measures to achieve equality of outcome -- everybody studies the same watered down material. We will all wind up equally poor.

[jimbogumbo]

I'm curious as to who posting here is not in a STEM field? I think polly is way closer to the truth on this issue than writingprof. I've seen many issues regarding expanding the student base in STEM through the years, and they have definitely not been related to "decolonization".

[writingprof]

I'm curious as to who posting here is not in a STEM field? I think polly is way closer to the truth on this issue than writingprof. I've seen many issues regarding expanding the student base in STEM through the years, and they have definitely not been related to "decolonization".

I'm not talking about expanding the student base.  I'm talking about the rejection of rationalism.  This is already happening in Canada, where scientists are beginning to add "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" to their curricula.

[jimbogumbo]

I'm curious as to who posting here is not in a STEM field? I think polly is way closer to the truth on this issue than writingprof. I've seen many issues regarding expanding the student base in STEM through the years, and they have definitely not been related to "decolonization".

I'm not talking about expanding the student base.  I'm talking about the rejection of rationalism.  This is already happening in Canada, where scientists are beginning to add "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" to their curricula.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just curious. I know the phrase Indigenous Ways of Knowing, but have never really seen it applied to Chemistry, Engineering, Math or Physics in any serious way within those fields. I see journalists and advocates writing about it, but mostly in connection to fields like Ethnobotany.

[Wahoo Redux]

Pro.


Con.

[jimbogumbo]

Has anyone seen IDK referenced in professional societies such as the ACM, ACS, AMS, APS, IEEE or MAA? Don't mean to leave out other Engineering Societies, just don't have those initials in my head.

The Novella Blog Wahoo referenced refers to Canada and Africa. I'm not seeing this in US debates within the fields. For those not familiar with him, Novella is really active  with The Skeptical Inquirer (I'm a fan).

Heck, even in the video marshwiggle posted the young Black YouTuber in the hip hop cap shook his head at what he termed the nonsense of science denial.

[polly_mer]

No, no, no.  Nobody is seriously suggesting that crap for chemistry, physics, or any related topics.

You are incorrect.  Furthermore, you're committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. 

You:  "Nobody is seriously suggesting that crap."
Them: "We suggest that crap."
You:  "Your suggestion isn't serious."

Curriculum "decolonization" is being suggested in the STEM fields.  Whether or not we believe those suggestions to be serious, I assure you that they are seriously meant, and the people making them may very well win.

That has not trickled to where I am and I spend an inordinate amount of time with the physical science, math, and computer science discipline-based education research. 

fizzycist is correct that vigorous discussion occurs regarding how to do better with underrepresented groups without sacrificing rigor as well as the distinction between rigor by supporting novices and filtering for current success.


Jimbogumbo is correct that I see various non-scientists stick their oars on the water, but none of the even international societies that matter go beyond 'we should assist anyone who wants to be a scientist'.  Wanting to be respected by pulling diversity crap is not the same as actually being respected as scientists who also have some interests in addressing diversity concerns in the appropriate field.

One really is not a professional scientist if the other professional scientists don't accept one as such and that's a problem for would-be scientists in some parts of the world who simply aren't scientists in their desired fields any way the qualifications are sliced.  Suggestions might be seriously meant, but they will not be widely adopted.

A feature of physical science is things that don't work can't be made to work and therefore are self correcting.  That's not true in fields that are entirely a human construct with no appeal to an objective reality.

[writingprof]

A feature of physical science is things that don't work can't be made to work and therefore are self correcting. 

I pray that you are right.  And it's surely true that even the most hardcore "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" ideologue would go to an oncologist for his cancer rather than a witch doctor.  On the other hand, much mischief can be done before the self-correction happens. 

[polly_mer]

A feature of physical science is things that don't work can't be made to work and therefore are self correcting. 

I pray that you are right.  And it's surely true that even the most hardcore "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" ideologue would go to an oncologist for his cancer rather than a witch doctor.  On the other hand, much mischief can be done before the self-correction happens.

Are you a scholar of a relevant scientific community who is watching a particular community go stupid in terms of changing their curriculum, expelling well established scholars for not toeing a politically correct line, and actually making the changes away from scientific ways of knowing?

Or, are you a humanities person who is applying ways of knowing to other communities without careful thought?  For example, while No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy in the classroom, it's also true that the power structures in many-to-most communities are such that people who are well outside the norms of the group have little to no power to make substantial changes and are effectively not members of the group as they insist a core value of the group must change to better accommodate current marginal-to-non-members of the group. 

Considering how much effort has had to go into getting some changes in community in the past 30 years that I've been watching and there have been established people living it and promoting it at every turn, assertions like "Somehow, this other way of knowing is really physics/chemistry/engineering/math/geology/astrophysics and should be completely adopted as standard and a core value" doesn't have a good shot.  I have been careful to keep qualifying my assertions as "physical science" because there's a non-negligible fraction of physical scientists and engineers who don't accept parts of social science as valid scientific ways of knowing, let alone something that cannot be studied using the standard methods of evidence and repeatability for physical science methods.

One really, really interesting (and somewhat horrifying) part of watching Covid unroll in the popular media compared to the scientific media/social media is the disconnect between how scientists of many types approach problems, even on an accelerated timeline, and how non-scientists jump to convenient conclusions based on wishful thinking or misreadings of the actual scientific reports with the assertions of "science has proven".  I see a big danger in the US and other places continuing as people latch on to one report published/circulated/proposed in a legitimate enough scientific outlet, purported scientific finding, or just convenient truthiness to justify laws, rules, and behaviors that continue to put us all at risk.

I am much, much more worried that all kinds of people with university-degrees-and-further-information think that, by virtue of expertise in other areas that somehow they know just as much by reading the popular media as scientists who read/watch/follow the for-other-scientist-overviews in the science media.  I have zero worries that scientists will adopt crap as science, but I do have serious worries that other parts of the academia will adopt crap as humanities and some parts of "social science" while asserting loudly that everyone else should join them.  Certain higher education institutions are at risk of undermining themselves as credible knowledge centers in various subjects, but science as a whole doesn't have that problem.

[marshwiggle]

I am much, much more worried that all kinds of people with university-degrees-and-further-information think that, by virtue of expertise in other areas that somehow they know just as much by reading the popular media as scientists who read/watch/follow the for-other-scientist-overviews in the science media.  I have zero worries that scientists will adopt crap as science, but I do have serious worries that other parts of the academia will adopt crap as humanities and some parts of "social science" while asserting loudly that everyone else should join them.  Certain higher education institutions are at risk of undermining themselves as credible knowledge centers in various subjects, but science as a whole doesn't have that problem.

I am somewhat worried about fields like neuroscience, where all kinds of activists (not necessarily Indigenous ones, but trans activists and so on) make enough noise to make certain kinds of research off-limits. Even though it's "hard" science, rather than social science, there can be enough political pressure to defund certain kinds of things. So, even if they can't get "crap" published as legitimate science, they can prevent legitimate science which would refute the crap from seeing the light of day, or being done in the first place.

[writingprof]

While No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy in the classroom, it's also true that the power structures in many-to-most communities are such that people who are well outside the norms of the group have little to no power to make substantial changes and are effectively not members of the group as they insist a core value of the group must change to better accommodate current marginal-to-non-members of the group. 

Well said.  I persist in hoping that scientists hold to their core values (i.e., the scientific method) as those values are challenged by "marginalized" people.

I am somewhat worried about fields like neuroscience, where all kinds of activists (not necessarily Indigenous ones, but trans activists and so on) make enough noise to make certain kinds of research off-limits.

This indisputable truth makes me worry that they will not.

[Parasaurolophus]

The Novella Blog Wahoo referenced refers to Canada and Africa. I'm not seeing this in US debates within the fields. For those not familiar with him, Novella is really active  with The Skeptical Inquirer (I'm a fan).

Even then, it doesn't actually give us any concrete examples of undermining field content, especially pertaining to STEM fields. Frankly, I think that most of the "controversy" boils down to a straw man characterization.

(I'll readily concede that talk of 'knowledges' is nonsensical, as are appeals to 'subjectivity' or 'relativism'. But that's not at all unique to people pressing for more Indigenous content. The academy is woefully philosophically illiterate, and parrots all kinds of terminological nonsense. Hell, a large number of people on this forum do the very same thing.)

Are you a scholar of a relevant scientific community who is watching a particular community go stupid in terms of changing their curriculum, expelling well established scholars for not toeing a politically correct line, and actually making the changes away from scientific ways of knowing?

Exactly: I think this is the crucial question. And, unfortunately, I rather doubt that the answer is 'yes', since I'm not seeing any concrete cases being referred to.

Or, are you a humanities person who is applying ways of knowing to other communities without careful thought?  For example, while No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy in the classroom, it's also true that the power structures in many-to-most communities are such that people who are well outside the norms of the group have little to no power to make substantial changes and are effectively not members of the group as they insist a core value of the group must change to better accommodate current marginal-to-non-members of the group. 

As the resident philosopher, I should add one thing: No True Scotsman is an informal fallacy, which means that you can't identify it based on its form alone (the same is true of the ad hominem, straw man, red herring, etc.). (The contrast here is to formal fallacies such as denying the antecedent, where every instance of it is a bad--invalid!--argument.) You have to actually look at and understand the content of an informal fallacy, because the form of the argument is not a guide to its quality. So: not every instance of excluding counterexamples commits the NTS.

In this case, I don't think polly was committing the NTS at all.

[writingprof]

As the resident philosopher, I should add one thing: No True Scotsman is an informal fallacy, which means that you can't identify it based on its form alone (the same is true of the ad hominem, straw man, red herring, etc.). (The contrast here is to formal fallacies such as denying the antecedent, where every instance of it is a bad--invalid!--argument.) You have to actually look at and understand the content of an informal fallacy, because the form of the argument is not a guide to its quality. So: not every instance of excluding counterexamples commits the NTS.

I see that I am being schooled by my logical-fallacy superiors.  I submit to your instruction, wise ones.

[Wahoo Redux]

I do have serious worries that other parts of the academia will adopt crap as humanities and some parts of "social science" while asserting loudly that everyone else should join them.  Certain higher education institutions are at risk of undermining themselves as credible knowledge centers in various subjects

Could you give us a specific example of what you are talking about?

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying there, Polly.