White Supremacy in Chemistry - Apparently

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

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.

Maybe that needs a closer discussion, I am not a fan  of how the curriculum is framed, but I think it is fair to say that knowledge is never created in a vacuum. The way we learn and think about science is dependent on how knowledge is created, evaluated, transmitted and preserved.

A purely oral tradition would have a vastly different, likely less quantitative system, for example. Yet it still would transmit knowledge (and in conversation sciences, indigenous knowledge is getting a bit of a revival, right now). Indubitably, Science in its current format, rose from European traditions and has, as I mentioned earlier, historic issues. There also have been demographic  issues in disciplines, including chemistry, and I could imagine an argument being made that this has influenced the discipline. In my mind, more in terms of what is being researched and how. But what topic the course ultimately entertains, I don't know and it does seem to be a bit sensationalist about it.

It is easy to see the spectrum of PC over it, but I think there is always some calue to at least trying to rethink the properties of the system we operate in.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

I don't see at as a bias thing as such, but rather a meta-view on a given system. I.e. ultimately it is a more philosophical approach. Rather looking at the natural world, we now look at how we look at the natural world. Social sciences like to jump the shark a bit with their concepts, which are typically far less quantitative, but at the same time, I am curious enough to try to look at things from a different perspective, as long as some sort of data is presented (which might not be the case for this topic). To me, it seems more like a conceptual thing, but the only hard data I can think of at the top of my head are underrepresentation and underfunding of non-white academics, which is being discussed by the various chemical societies, as far as I know. But here, the issue of bias among senior academics is somewhat harder dispute and as OP also mentioned, probably not really what the course is about. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Why do do think I made it No. 1 ?

 

When I doo doo, think I made it number 2

 

/rimshot  I’m in town all week, folks. Next show’s at 10. Be sure to tip your servers. 
 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I cannot divine what the authors may have meant to say, only what they did say

False. Every. Single. Word that you EVER read is being interpreted by YOUR mind in an attempt to “divine” what the authors mean or may have meant to say. 

Given how needlessly hard the above exchanges with you here have been, however, I’m beginning to accept that maybe you “cannot” in fact do that, at least not terribly well sometimes. 

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

there is no subjectivity in the repeatability of an experiment, no matter who performs it

Not even when defining what it even means to “reproduce” a result, or follow the same methods, or decide upon a threshold for acceptable equivalence in starting conditions or operations? 

Edited January 29, 2023 by iNow

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

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

 

Is that an unbiased opinion? 😁

I tend to see biases. You tend to see none. I have no idea which of us (if either) is seeing reality.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

Clearly science tries to remove subjectivity but I don't know if it is 100% possible. If a word in my culture has a slightly different meaning than the same word in your culture don't we run the risk of either performing experiments differently, or interpreting the results differently, even though we both start with the same set of instructions?

[Ken Fabian]

Storm in teacup. People devoted to Feminist or Race Studies will tend to make every issue they explore about patriarchy and misogyny and racism.  As Socialist idealogues make everything that is wrong about Capitalists and Capitalist ideologues make everying wrong about Socialists.

A lot of the media can't help themselves; they trawl for people saying stupid or outrageous things that press people's buttons, in order to press people's buttons. Otherwise no-one would care what those people say, certainly not chemistry faculties.

Encouraging participation in chemistry irrespective of gender or race or religion is mainstream reasonable and widely supported.

[Arete]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

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'.

 

1) The article is unequivocally about the pedagogy and teaching of chemistry at a tertiary institution in the United States. Whatever your thoughts on its broader sweeping implications for the philosophy of science, that is clearly, explicitly the framework in which the article is written. 

2) It is written in a broader climate where there is increasing acknowledgement, specifically in the United States, that traditional pedagogical and teaching methods of college teaching are implicitly biased to favour/disadvantage individuals from different backgrounds. There's currently a broader discussion of this in the literature and college communities in which this particular article is written; eg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210311530010X, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5110152, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1692211

3) The article is poorly written in the context it is clearly aimed at. It's buzzwordy and reactionary in the language it uses, rather than objective and reflective. This leads to it reading like it is suggesting that science/knowledge itself is biased (which is ridiculous), rather than the methods of teaching/communicating it, which is what the broader body of discussion on the topic addresses. 

4. The language example was simply one of convenience. You can also look at the use of traditional classrooms when some of the class has spent most of their lives outside, or written vs oral exams for students who grew up in homes with books vs not, school year structure for students with unstable vs stable housing, etc etc etc. Then you can look at the impact of varying pedagogical styles, like flipped classrooms, active learning, open air lectures, etc etc etc. 

The article in question is attempting to speak into an ongoing conversation with many points of merit. The article in question, however, is not very good. 

[CharonY]

To add to that, the Journal in question also publishes experiences and method used in courses, and often looks at things like how to conduct a course (especially experimental courses), how it is received by students and so on. Taking a look at the paper proper, the intro has a lot of fluff which is unusual for STEM papers, but not uncommon for sociological articles. But the core of the course really appears to be more about historical issues in science and how they might translate into modern sciences. I.e. it seems to be a course for STEM students rather than a creating a new framework of teaching chemistry to students (I do find the paper, as a whole, to be poorly written). 

Topics being covered are background in feminism (take it or leave it, I guess) but more interestingly, how politics and history motivated certain types of research and conclusions. These includes many of the typical cases folks learn in bioethics, such as non-consensual experiments on minorities (whose consent matters?), social Darwinism (extrapolation of scientific concepts to benefit certain power structures), the imbalance and lack of research in women's health and the undervaluing of female researchers.

I am with Arete that the framing of the course is not ideal, but the material itself seems pretty inoffensive to me and is actually critical to improve sciences, probably with some more relevance to biomedical sciences than chemistry, but there is some overlap there, too.

I think the point that the authors try to make is that the frameworks develops in sociological sciences can be helpful to contextualize the information we create in sciences and to at least acknowledge that these are not pure intellectual pursuits free from our current political and cultural situation (folks working on climate change might have a word or two in that regard. Or evolution. Or vaccines.)

[MigL]

It may be 'inoffensive', but it does do this ...

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

People devoted to Feminist or Race Studies will tend to make every issue they explore about patriarchy and misogyny and racism.  As Socialist idealogues make everything that is wrong about Capitalists and Capitalist ideologues make everying wrong about Socialists.
A lot of the media can't help themselves; they trawl for people saying stupid or outrageous things that press people's buttons, in order to press people's buttons.

Instead of this ...

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Encouraging participation in chemistry irrespective of gender or race or religion is mainstream reasonable and widely supported.

Which we would all agree is the preferred outcome.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

A lot of the media can't help themselves; they trawl for people saying stupid or outrageous things that press people's buttons, in order to press people's buttons.

Exploring what even is “the media” in todays tiktok twitter-fi instameta world could be a fun topic to explore (not this thread) if the right people came to it with the right emotional energy. 

/OTObservation

[studiot]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Clearly science tries to remove subjectivity but I don't know if it is 100% possible.

I already noted that is isn't 100%, but that in general 'science does it's best.

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Storm in teacup. People devoted to Feminist or Race Studies will tend to make every issue they explore about patriarchy and misogyny and racism.  As Socialist idealogues make everything that is wrong about Capitalists and Capitalist ideologues make everying wrong about Socialists.

A lot of the media can't help themselves; they trawl for people saying stupid or outrageous things that press people's buttons, in order to press people's buttons. Otherwise no-one would care what those people say, certainly not chemistry faculties.

Encouraging participation in chemistry irrespective of gender or race or religion is mainstream reasonable and widely supported.

Good viewpoint.  +1

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Exploring what even is “the media” in todays tiktok twitter-fi instameta world could be a fun topic to explore (not this thread) if the right people came to it with the right emotional energy. 

/OTObservation

Agreed, the media has widened its scope.

8 hours ago, Arete said:

The article is poorly written in the context it is clearly aimed at. It's buzzwordy and reactionary in the language it uses, rather than objective and reflective. This leads to it reading like it is suggesting that science/knowledge itself is biased (which is ridiculous), rather than the methods of teaching/communicating it, which is what the broader body of discussion on the topic addresses. 

Agreed, I think by everybody here.

8 hours ago, Arete said:

1) The article is unequivocally about the pedagogy and teaching of chemistry at a tertiary institution in the United States. Whatever your thoughts on its broader sweeping implications for the philosophy of science, that is clearly, explicitly the framework in which the article is written. 

This still misses my main scientific point, although I admit I made it in the same sensationalist manner as the article and rather hoped other technical people would pick up on it rather better than they have.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

This still misses my main scientific point, although I admit I made it in the same sensationalist manner as the article and rather hoped other technical people would pick up on it rather better than they have.

“My point was brilliant but my readers the opposite.” Lol

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

“My point was brilliant but my readers the opposite.” Lol

The point is,  "Did you understand it ?"

[iNow]

Better than even you did, of course. 🙄