Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 02 2016, @02:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-like-pantry-picks dept.

MIT's Tech newspaper reports on a growing list of MIT faculty who have signed a statement opposing a number of Donald Trump's cabinet appointments and "reaffirming their dedication to 'principles at the core of MIT's mission.'"

The statement denounces discrimination, promotes open communication, and asserts the need to respect the scientific method. Signatories include four out of the ten Nobel Prize winners currently part of the MIT faculty, as well as author Junot Diaz and Affordable Care Act architect Jonathan Gruber. [...]

About 25 percent of MIT faculty have now signed the statement. [The School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences], which comprises 17 percent of MIT faculty, represents a disproportionately large percentage of the signatories at about 22 percent. The School of Engineering is underrepresented, with also about 22 percent of signatories, but comprising 37 percent of total faculty. These differences may be a result of the thus far uneven dissemination of the statement across departments.

The MIT statement joins a growing litany of open letters from scientists to the Trump administration, with over 2300 scientists -- including 22 Nobel Prize winners -- signing another statement asking for a "strong and open culture of science" and "adhering to high standards of scientific integrity and independence." A group of female scientists concerned about racism and sexism in science initially aimed for 500 signatures from women scientists, but their list now has grown to over 11,000 worldwide.

The actual MIT statement with list of signatories can be found here. At the time of this submission, it had grown by over 10% since the Tech report was written on Wednesday afternoon and now has over 500 signatures.

[Continues...]

The complete text of the statement reads:

The President-elect has appointed individuals to positions of power who have endorsed racism, misogyny and religious bigotry, and denied the widespread scientific consensus on climate change. Regardless of our political views, these endorsements violate principles at the core of MIT's mission. At this time, it is important to reaffirm the values we hold in common.

We, the undersigned faculty at MIT, thus affirm the following principles:

  • We unconditionally reject every form of bigotry, discrimination, hateful rhetoric, and hateful action, whether directed towards one's race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, citizenship, political views, socioeconomic status, veteran status, or immigration status.
  • We endorse MIT's values of open, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas from the widest variety of intellectual, religious, class, cultural, and political perspectives.
  • We uphold the principles of the scientific method, of fact- and reason-based objective inquiry. Science is not a special interest; it is not optional. Science is a foundational ingredient in how we as a society analyze, understand, and solve the most difficult challenges that we face.

For any member of our community who may feel fear or oppression, our doors are open and we are ready to help. We pledge to work with all members of the community – students, faculty, staff, postdoctoral researchers, and administrators – to defend these principles today and in the times ahead.

I imagine some reactions may be to dismiss this as yet another college appeal for "safe spaces" and "diversity," but from first-hand experience with the MIT community, I can say it's definitely distinct from the average "liberal arts school" environment. When they say "open, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas" from different perspectives, they generally mean it; I've personally seen debates there that would be instantly "shut down" elsewhere. I only wish they had reversed the order of the three bullet points and put science upfront, because that's what really distinguishes their message from many other groups.

More coverage on these letters expressing concern about science in the new administration in the Guardian and the Washington Post.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:00PM (#435993)

    They've gotten involved in what exactly? An airy fairy puff piece that says absolutely nothing!

    Currently, the penalty in academia for appearing to hold dissenting political views is a very Chilly Change in Climate indeed! You want money to continue your work? Well, you'd better toe the line, Comrade! So, signal others of your virtue, and then head back into the lab, where you can temporarily escape the fantastical make-believe world of all those "colleagues" who affirmatively weaseled their way into a once-upon-a-time hard-nosed Institution like MIT.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:09PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 02 2016, @04:09PM (#435998) Journal

    Ah, where would fascism be without the anti-intellectuals, raving about how their bullshit is totally just as good as real science?

    The reason that "no one" in academia "dissents" from global warming is quite simply because the evidence is incredibly overwhelming and you're just wrong.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:20PM (#436006)

      What does global warming have to do with anything? Red herring, much?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:27PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 02 2016, @04:27PM (#436011) Journal

        It's one of the central anti-science elements of Donald Trump's platform that this petition is seeking redress for?

        Seems topical to me.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:39PM (#436020)

          With regard to Climate Change research, there are real, worthy questions about methodology, bias, motivation, and even mathematical soundness. The only real scientific response is to address these questions systematically, not sign petitions or lobby officials or appeal to public emotion.

          If you want public money to research and implement your views, then you've got to take criticism seriously.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:48PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 02 2016, @04:48PM (#436026) Journal

            And now that your original point that it's irrelevant has been countered, you're awful quick to jump into the traditional anti-science classes of pseudoskepticism: "There are areas that require further investigation therefor people who call the whole thing nonsense and refuse to act on incredibly high quality information are okay in my book".

            The nature of the argument is literally indistinguishable from those of
            *Creationists: Do you know how organ Y evolved? Do you have transitional fossil #43245231.3? No? then evolution is obviously not science.
            *Anti-vaxxers: Can you prove with absolute certainty that there are zero side effects to the exact vaccine schedule recommended by doctors? No? Then obviously it's okay to not vaccinate my kids.
            and
            *Ufologists: Do you have a proven explanation for this sighting? Oh you do? But not this one, so obviously you can't know for certain that we're not being run by reptilians

            But you act sanctimonious about understanding the true nature of science unlike us people who just use the evidence to compare the central hypothesis to the null hypothesis and find no compelling confounding factors that could adequately explain the data. You're wrong. You're incredibly wrong. And you're dragging us to hell with you because your ego prefers someone who tells you what you want to hear(that it's all a Chinese myth).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:16PM (#436040)

              You want other people's money? You should have to convince them to give it to you.

              There are real, scientific concerns with the methodology and even the mathematics behind climate research; maligning a dissenting voice through guilt by association with other maligned ideas is what is anti-scientific.

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @05:31PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 02 2016, @05:31PM (#436051) Journal

                You see "Your argument is of this same fallacious form as these other people" and your mind just looks for the most approximate match of a logical fallacy it can. In this case it selected the completely crazy "Guilt by association" which would requirement to say that because you have a standing relationship with those groups you're wrong.

                To my knowledge, you personally know exactly zero creationists, anti-vaxxers, and ufologists. According to my post I attributed zero relationship between you and those groups other than making the same incorrect argument about the nature of scientific understanding.

                You then proceed to conclude that my refutation of your bullshit is censorship, which very quickly leads me to suspect that you're not very good at this free-and-open society thing that you're pretending to care about for the sake of argument.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:54PM (#436244)

                Why do you think scientists hate grant proposals so much? They think their studies are valid and do not like wasting time having to justify them for funding. Sooo, yeah, you're really off base. I would totally have gotten my PhD if I knew the gov would just throw money at me for whatever I wanted!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday December 02 2016, @06:41PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday December 02 2016, @06:41PM (#436097) Journal

        What does global warming have to do with anything? Red herring, much?

        Never before have I seen on SoylentNews such an innocent, guileless admission of "did not read the FA." Do try to keep up, AC?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:21PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:21PM (#436118)

          Well, I've seen quite frequently on SoylentNews your inability to follow the argument at hand.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:47PM (#436152)

            Well, that sure doesn't address the actual topic at hand or the inability of the previous AC to realize climate change is a central theme to this discussion.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday December 02 2016, @10:19PM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday December 02 2016, @10:19PM (#436263) Journal

            Sorry, "guileless" means "without guile", or not intended to deceive. I will try to use smaller and more common words in the future. Sometimes I forget we have ACs of limited vocabulary. Now, what was the thing we were arguing about again? Trump the ex-Birther is now a Climate-change Denier and anti-Vaxxer, and one of the most prestigious tech university's faculty has noticed this fact? No wonder you were confused.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:39PM (#436145)

          You must be new here!

          • (Score: 1) by new here on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:41AM

            by new here (1931) on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:41AM (#436431)

            No, I am new here, you insensitive clod.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday December 02 2016, @05:03PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday December 02 2016, @05:03PM (#436033)

      We should run the experiment. Let Trump drive out the political hacks at the National Science Foundation and install his own. When the money says AGW is false and "your sad devotion to that ancient religion" means no funding, we shall see how many so called scientists change positions with the political winds and how many truly believe. 90% of scientists continuing to ring the bell even if it meant loss of grant money, loss of prestige, etc. would carry a lot more weight than the current situation where scaremongering pays well and promises to someday give their political faction ultimate power over all economic activity and a gusher of cash to 'redistribute' as they please.

      Which brings us directly to the subject at hand. On one level, this is nothing but butthurt Democrats still coming to terms with an unexpected loss since the Academy is now more reliably Democratic in their voting than even Blacks, although perhaps not quite at the level of Black Women. But on another level this is entirely practical since they all suckle the government teat and never expected a problem with the flow. Always follow the money. Money is truthful. So they are now trying to scaremonger up concessions. Being painfully ignorant outside their narrow specialty really shows here, otherwise they would know this sort of drama queen stuff is far more likely to elicit the exact opposite response from Trump.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:29PM (#436050)

        the current situation where scaremongering pays well

        Do you have any evidence that scaremongering over climate change leads to more NSF grant money? If someone was really trying to make some money by trading in their credibility, then Big Business is usually the way to go.

        If the, typically, liberal political views of scientists substantially affect their analysis of results, then why isn't there a strong anti-GMO or anti-vaccine consensus? The scientific consensus on both of those topics are not believed by many on the left, but the scientists don't seem to change their analysis or try to scaremonger more money.

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @06:46PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 02 2016, @06:46PM (#436098) Journal

        "Ah, if we just let a dictator install people to spread propaganda instead of research facts then you'll see that the people for whom there is no evidence of malfeasance were exactly the same thing"

        Bash the Fash. Beat every Jmorris you meet in the street.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:00PM (#436104)

          I think it might be better to start ignoring all his posts, more and more I think a lot of these guys are just trolls looking to piss people off.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @07:07PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 02 2016, @07:07PM (#436109) Journal

            Ignoring them seems smart until they start winning elections, then you realize their bullshit going uncontested has real consequences.

            • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:11AM

              by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:11AM (#436326) Journal

              People want to believe AGW is lies, somthey can continue to drive a monster truck, use air conditioning every day, get tax breaks rather than investment in sustainable renewables...

              Trump may have campaigned that he would "shake things up", but I think alot of people voted for him because he basically represents the status quo. No thinking, no change, no "new" (technology, jobs, taxes, etc etc)

              Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Adddiction to coal and gas and other dirty, cheap fuel is not going away. People don't want change.

              --
              "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:50PM (#436099)

        We should run the experiment. Let Trump drive out the political hacks at the National Science Foundation and install his own. When the money says AGW is false and "your sad devotion to that ancient religion" means no funding, we shall see how many so called scientists change positions with the political winds and how many truly believe.

        No, let's not run that little experiment. Historically, the way that usually plays out is (a) the best and brightest will leave this country for other countries which are much more congenial thus causing a brain drain from the USA, and (b) political pressure on scientists to toe the party line will stunt this country's scientific prowess and put us at a disadvantage for at least a generation to come. That is what you are really asking for here. Right now I fear for America's future.

      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday December 02 2016, @07:35PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Friday December 02 2016, @07:35PM (#436138) Journal

        We should run the experiment. Let Trump drive out the political hacks at the National Science Foundation and install his own.

        lol.

        <troll>
        Yeah, you want them to concentrate on real American Physics [wikipedia.org], kick all those degenerate <outgroup> [wikipedia.org] physicists out of your country!
        In fact, I'm sure some people say that all AGW believers *are* in fact <outgroup> members! Has it been proven that this is not so? Well then!
        If scientists don't toe the Party line, then obviously there must be something wrong with them. Hail Myron Ebell [globalwarming.org]!
        </troll>

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @04:29PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday December 02 2016, @04:29PM (#436013) Journal

    Interesting. I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but since the first AC comment has been modded up, I guess I'll reply. I don't know if you're the same AC who posted earlier, but that post argued that notable faculty were too busy to participate because it was apparently too onerous to leave their labs and sign onto a statement. Now, when notable faculty might have actually signed the statement... now signing a statement is apparently doing "nothing" and they are apparently being cajoled to by their apparent opponents on the faculty with opposing political views, and if they don't participate, they won't get funding for their research.

    Are you serious? You do realize that MIT receives a lot of FEDERAL funding, right? For fiscal year 2016, they are receiving $477 million dollars from various federal departments toward research (roughly 2/3 of the research income for MIT). And you think faculty members in labs are idiotic enough to show up and sign a statement against the new federal government head because they are afraid their COLLEAGUES are going to take away their grant money?? That money comes from the government they are criticizing!

    If you wanted to be really cynical, I suppose you could have taken the opposite argument -- that these "scientists" aren't seriously concerned about science, and are really just worried about their grant money. And they're afraid that the new government officials will take away their money if allowed to take office. THAT would at least be a slightly more logical argument, even though I still think it doesn't explain the actions of most of the people on this list (many and probably most of whom receive funding for stuff that is unlikely to be defunded under Trump for political reasons).

    Keep trying. Instead of actually taking things at face value, eventually you'll find some random set of ideas that could create a conspiracy theory that will explain away any inconvenient set of facts.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:06PM (#436034)

      The "notable" faculty are almost certainly people who have morphed from high thinkers into figurehead managers of large organizations that have evolved to work with politically tainted bureaucracies. It is what it is.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:12PM (#436112)

        "almost certainly" correct?