Wasn’t this more about taking away the names from a bunch of people who in hindsight were terrible people? I remember something awhile back about people getting upset because some groups had decided that if you had a shred of negativity in your past, you weren’t allowed to discover and name things. I believe they were trying to change a bunch of names “to not honor the original person”.
That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.
The real actual science, just ask petroleum, cigarettes, sugar, mosanto glyphosate, lysenkoism, grant allocation, DDT, lead gasoline and paint, amiante, IQ, operation paperclip, nuclear testing, SSRIs, opioid crisis, covid 19, gain-of-functionr research, psychology replication crisis, trans fats, usda food pyramid, even cold fusion and the latest entry in this list PFOA/PFAS.
Scientific truths and regulatory actions often “become allowed” only when they are no longer economically threatening to the incumbents.
I think you’re confusing “politics injected into science” with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn’t invent something is removing data points and I’m pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Have you ever been to a niche scientific community conference? It’s always been 90% politics.
The Magellanic Cloud community collectively decided that they didn’t want to study objects named after someone who had subjugated the communities of ancestors studying it, so they agreed to call them the Milky Clouds. A pop science article went out about it and people complained that it wasn’t science, it was politics. But unless you’re a part of that community, you don’t get to decide on the names of the objects that these people understand better than literally anyone else alive or dead. They’re doing more science regarding these objects than anyone else has ever tried, they get to decide what’s best, even if it appears political.
Well yes, generally that’s how jargon is developed. Typically people who don’t contribute to the knowledge base of a field don’t have any say in how that field uses language.
I see it as the exact opposite. If we let the professionals, i.e. cartographers and historians hold the reigns rather than people who don’t have anything to do with it, eg. some pedophile politicians, nothing would have been changed.
Wtf are you going on about? I’m talking about changing the name of a plant because it’s discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I’m literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.
Wasn’t this more about taking away the names from a bunch of people who in hindsight were terrible people? I remember something awhile back about people getting upset because some groups had decided that if you had a shred of negativity in your past, you weren’t allowed to discover and name things. I believe they were trying to change a bunch of names “to not honor the original person”.
That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.
Science is a highly political process.
The real actual science, just ask petroleum, cigarettes, sugar, mosanto glyphosate, lysenkoism, grant allocation, DDT, lead gasoline and paint, amiante, IQ, operation paperclip, nuclear testing, SSRIs, opioid crisis, covid 19, gain-of-functionr research, psychology replication crisis, trans fats, usda food pyramid, even cold fusion and the latest entry in this list PFOA/PFAS.
Scientific truths and regulatory actions often “become allowed” only when they are no longer economically threatening to the incumbents.
I think you’re confusing “politics injected into science” with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn’t invent something is removing data points and I’m pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Have you ever been to a niche scientific community conference? It’s always been 90% politics.
The Magellanic Cloud community collectively decided that they didn’t want to study objects named after someone who had subjugated the communities of ancestors studying it, so they agreed to call them the Milky Clouds. A pop science article went out about it and people complained that it wasn’t science, it was politics. But unless you’re a part of that community, you don’t get to decide on the names of the objects that these people understand better than literally anyone else alive or dead. They’re doing more science regarding these objects than anyone else has ever tried, they get to decide what’s best, even if it appears political.
“unless you’re a part of the community fuck you”
I can see why it got heated…
Well yes, generally that’s how jargon is developed. Typically people who don’t contribute to the knowledge base of a field don’t have any say in how that field uses language.
And that’s how you end up with Gulf of America
I see it as the exact opposite. If we let the professionals, i.e. cartographers and historians hold the reigns rather than people who don’t have anything to do with it, eg. some pedophile politicians, nothing would have been changed.
Wtf are you going on about? I’m talking about changing the name of a plant because it’s discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I’m literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.
Remember, it’s only “revisionist history” if it’s the history you don’t like. Otherwise it’s “because totally valid reasons”.