White Supremacy in Chemistry - Apparently

[iNow]

Isn’t the decision about what constitutes objective itself a subjective one?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Isn’t the decision about what constitutes objective itself a subjective one?

No my decision is final in all cases.

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Isn’t the decision about what constitutes objective itself a subjective one?

No. For instance, in science we demand reproducible observations. That is a collective requirement the science community as a whole has adopted, in an attempt to achieve objectivity. That has not been arrived at subjectively. 

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, exchemist said:

the science community as a whole has adopted, in an attempt to achieve objectivity. That has not been arrived at subjectively. 

How was that NOT subjective? 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

How was that NOT subjective? 

Because it is collective, rather than individual, is not specific to a group or a way of thinking it is a reasoned technique for achieving objectivity. But if you think it is subjective, what would you say is subjective about it?  

Edited January 28, 2023 by exchemist

[iNow]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Because it is collective, rather than individual, is not specific to a group or a way of thinking it is a reasoned technique for achieving objectivity

So the aggregate of a bunch of subjective decisions and adopted principles is objective? Is there a threshold for how many people must first form a consensus before their individual subjective notions officially earn the objective moniker?

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

So the aggregate of a bunch of subjective decisions and adopted principles is objective? Is there a threshold for how many people must first form a consensus before their individual subjective notions officially earn the objective moniker?

"Officially"?

Where do you think the subjectivity comes in, in the practice of requiring reproducibility in observations? What is subjective about thinking this is a good practice to adopt?

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Where do you think the subjectivity comes in, in the practice of requiring reproducibility in observations?

In calling that practice objective, that’s where. 

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What is subjective about thinking this is a good practice to adopt?

The value judgment that it’s “good,” for starters. 

[exchemist]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

In calling that practice objective, that’s where. 

The value judgment that it’s “good,” for starters. 

Do you think all value judgements are subjective, then? 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Because it is collective, rather than individual, is not specific to a group or a way of thinking it is a reasoned technique for achieving objectivity. But if you think it is subjective, what would you say is subjective about it?  

Actually it is also based on a specific group of folks that have been trained a specific way. Reproducibility is important, but to various degree we establish threshold in which we accept variability for a given methodology. Threshold and methodology again are established by a specific group of people. Some things work out to be extremely robust and it gives a semblance of objectivity. Other concepts are or remain a less bound by nature and are part of what a group of folks have established to be useful in for their work. Species are such a concept, for example. 

[studiot]

I must say I fail to see what is subjective about the result of adding silver nitrate solution to sodium chloride solution.

Perhaps we should ban such experiments since the majority of salts are white so white precipitates (if any at all) will be in the majority.

[CharonY]

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

I must say I fail to see what is subjective about the result of adding silver nitrate solution to sodium chloride solution.

Perhaps we should ban such experiments since the majority of salts are white so white precipitates (if any at all) will be in the majority.

The reactions are obviously independent of the operator. However, the interpretation depends on the whole system that has been built around chemistry. The notations we use for example are the one that we found useful and therefore we teach it. Yet it does not mean that the ways we describe the reactions are objectively the only way to do it. In other words nature, is truly objective and independent of people. However, the way we investigate and interpret nature is not. 

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The reactions are obviously independent of the operator. However, the interpretation depends on the whole system that has been built around chemistry. The notations we use for example are the one that we found useful and therefore we teach it. Yet it does not mean that the ways we describe the reactions are objectively the only way to do it. In other words nature, is truly objective and independent of people. However, the way we investigate and interpret nature is not. 

I fail to see the relevancy of this to either of my comments.

In particular would I be considered racist if I reported a black precipitate on passing hydrogen sulphide through copper sulphate solution ?

Edited January 28, 2023 by studiot

[naitche]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

How was that NOT subjective? 

The objective, to achieve a state of being that serves Humanity in pursuit of knowledge.  Its creation is objective, it has margins or boundaries of what is legitimate or valid to its state. The purpose served is Objective.

Property or membership serving that state must adhere to those bonds, for  legitimate or valid recognition. 

Values are/were brought to science subjectively, and influence the directions taken in science. Not the science itself which is an objective state- that should 'Object' to values contrary to its purpose.

So yes, I think all value judgements are Subjective- of the states/beings served or suppressed in their application.

White supremacy is not the purpose or objective of science. Its supporting membership may subjectively support white supremacy, but the science does not- Not if objective and subjective values are correctly applied. A non white person is Objectively not white. No other objective applies. Only subjective values.

Edited January 29, 2023 by naitche

[Arete]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The reactions are obviously independent of the operator. However, the interpretation depends on the whole system that has been built around chemistry. The notations we use for example are the one that we found useful and therefore we teach it. Yet it does not mean that the ways we describe the reactions are objectively the only way to do it. In other words nature, is truly objective and independent of people. However, the way we investigate and interpret nature is not. 

To piggyback - the abstract in the OP is poorly written, but I think what it's trying to say is that there is implicit biases in the way chemistry is taught, that favor/disadvantage students based on social/racial background. 

As CharonY points out, notations assume familiarity with a Phoenician alphabet and a periodic table originally written in English. This has the potential effect of implicitly biasing the learning of traditional chemistry to favor native speakers of Germanic languages. While a redox reaction remains the same whether you describe it using scientific notation, Sanskrit or pelvic thrusting, the way a student is expected to describe it on a exam usually has an underlying set of implicit assumptions and biases. 

While identifying such biases and altering pedagogy to level the playing field is a worthwhile endeavor, calling such biases "white supremacy/white violence/etc"  is pretty eye roll inducing and something I personally think detracts from and diminishes the actual goal of identifying and ameliorating implicit bias from education and society at large. 

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Arete said:

a periodic table originally written in English.

Forgive me but I thought Mendeleev's original wrtings were in a mixture of Cyrillic for the text and Latin for the symbols as most of then known elements had Latin names.

Edited January 29, 2023 by studiot

[CharonY]

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

I fail to see the relevancy of this to either of my comments.

In particular would I be considered racist if I reported a black precipitate on passing hydrogen sulphide through copper sulphate solution ?

My point is that actually that your comment misses the thrust of the issue. I think Arete gave a good example of context. I agree that the abstract in OP is poorly written and reeks of expertise overreach, but the idea behind is all about the scientific system not science or even nature in itself. Let's say you let a person conduct the experiment you mentioned, but is unable to write or speak English. They also do not know the Latin names of the chemicals. Will they pass the exam? 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Do you think all value judgements are subjective, then? 

Affirmative 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Perhaps we should ban such experiments since the majority of salts are white so white precipitates (if any at all) will be in the majority.

Do you believe that’s a good faith summary of any single posters position here in this thread? 

49 minutes ago, naitche said:

yes, I think all value judgements are Subjective- of the states/beings served or suppressed in their application.

Thanks for adding this. 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Do you think all value judgements are subjective, then? 

Searching for a path forward toward progress with you here: Is it possible you’re conflating the concept of a value judgment with the output of an arithmetical or algebraic equation?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

My point is that actually that your comment misses the thrust of the issue. I think Arete gave a good example of context

 

11 hours ago, Arete said:

To piggyback - the abstract in the OP is poorly written, but I think what it's trying to say is that there is implicit biases in the way chemistry is taught, that favor/disadvantage students based on social/racial background. 

Well I don't agree with either of you.

In my view the opening post itself was clear enough, although I will accept any clarification by exchemist as to what he actually meant.

I understood it to mean that:

1.  An article was published that declared in exactly these words "all knowledge is..."
   In my dictionary all knowledge includes scientific knowledge, including established facts such as Pythagoras' theorem.
    
2. The article further states that political correctness is being applied to a particular course in a scientific subject, to whit Chemistry.
    
3. exchemist appears to me to be asking if this is sensible (science) and providing his opinion that this situation is 'bonkers'
    
4. I agree with him.
    
5. In extending these simple observations to the countries and places where they speak different languages I respectfully suggest that both CharonY and Arete are the ones who have 'missed the point'.

 

In particular the question of those who do not speak English is a red herring.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Let's say you let a person conduct the experiment you mentioned, but is unable to write or speak English. They also do not know the Latin names of the chemicals. Will they pass the exam? 

Said person must speak his or her own language and the exam in his or her country will not be in English but in his or her own language.
So why should they not pass the exam ?

No, I would not expect them to come to an English speaking country and take the exam in English and pass.
Would you ?

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you believe that’s a good faith summary of any single posters position here in this thread? 

Did you read the words 'perhaps we should' at the beginning of my sentence indicating Swiftesque irony ?

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Did you read the words 'perhaps we should' at the beginning of my sentence indicating Swiftesque irony ?

Sure did, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you clearly have taken a slanted view of the positions of other posters here and felt justified in analogizing those with such an exaggerated and hyperbolic comparison. 

Getting back to my question which you evaded by asking a new question if your own: Do you believe that stance applies to or represents anyone posting here in this thread, and if so, who? If not, then why post it at all?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Sure did, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you clearly have taken a slanted view of the positions of other posters here and felt justified in analogizing those with such an exaggerated and hyperbolic comparison. 

Getting back to my question which you evaded by asking a new question if your own: Do you believe that stance applies to or represents anyone posting here in this thread, and if so, who? If not, then why post it at all?

If so then why did you not quote the entire passage I posted when you made the strange sarky comment as a 'question' ?

 

The entire passage was predicated entirely upon placing an incontestible accident of fact in antithesis to what we have been asked to judge as being excessive political correctness.

Or perhaps the originators of the paper, speaking American English, would have failed an exam set in English English and I did not understand their use of the three letter word all.

So perhaps you would be kind enough to explain it to me so I don't get it wrong in the future and tar all americans with the brush of misunderstanding.

[iNow]

Wait, what exactly do you need me to explain for you? I’m picking up on your anger, just not why it’s aimed at me. 

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well I don't agree with either of you.

In my view the opening post itself was clear enough, although I will accept any clarification by exchemist as to what he actually meant.

I understood it to mean that:

1.  An article was published that declared in exactly these words "all knowledge is..."
   In my dictionary all knowledge includes scientific knowledge, including established facts such as Pythagoras' theorem.
    
2. The article further states that political correctness is being applied to a particular course in a scientific subject, to whit Chemistry.
    
3. exchemist appears to me to be asking if this is sensible (science) and providing his opinion that this situation is 'bonkers'
    
4. I agree with him.
    
5. In extending these simple observations to the countries and places where they speak different languages I respectfully suggest that both CharonY and Arete are the ones who have 'missed the point'.

 

In particular the question of those who do not speak English is a red herring.

Said person must speak his or her own language and the exam in his or her country will not be in English but in his or her own language.
So why should they not pass the exam ?

No, I would not expect them to come to an English speaking country and take the exam in English and pass.
Would you ?

Did you read the words 'perhaps we should' at the beginning of my sentence indicating Swiftesque irony ?

 

I think we are still talking past each other. You refer to the assertion by OP, whereas I am referring to the article linked in the OP. My point is that you and OP assume that the article refers to science in terms of natural processes (e.g. the chemical reactions themselves) whereas the article refers to the knowledge building, which requires a scientific system. The latter is built by folks using language, specific notations and theoretical frameworks that are based on nature, but are not natural and hence objective themselves.

Any science ultimately makes models that approximate and describe the natural world. And inherently, we accept that these models are artificial and often flawed to a certain extent. The important point, however, is that these models are useful in specific circumstances, despite the flaws. What the article tries to do is a more philosophical treatment of the scientific system, i.e. the elements that surround the model building.

[studiot]

46 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think we are still talking past each other. You refer to the assertion by OP,

No.

Please read my point number 1 again. It specifically refers to the article presented by the OP.

 

Why do do think I made it No. 1 ?

 

Let us discuss what that article actually stated. I cannot divine what the authors may have meant to say, only what they did say. Furthermore I expect, though I am not cetain, that that article will have undergone some sort of peer review process, given its source.

[MigL]

It seems that even institutions like a science forum can have biases.

Some may be biased in seeing biases where there are none; more and more common, these days.

I grant that the teaching and interpretation of the science, in a way that is understandable to the student, may have cultural, and other biases, but that is not what I understood of the OP either.
I am inclined to agree with Studiot, Exchemist ( there is no subjectivity in the repeatability of an experiment, no matter who performs it ), and Arete.