Tomorrow is the March for Science. Who's going?

[laughing dog]

For purposes of truth in advertising, I'd think it's inappropriate to call your march a march "for science" if most of the marchers are really just marching against Trump. YMMV.

As someone who was at the DC march, and who was involved with March for Science, I can attest that while there were a very few signs which were specifically anti- Trump, those signs and those marchers comprised a very small number of marchers in DC. Judging from what friends who attended other marches told me, and photos shared from other marches, this held true across all US and international marches. Personally, I marched with people who work with various defense contractors and on occasion, with DoD.

Frankly, there was tremendous discussion about whether or not anyone should carry an overtly political sign at all. Most did not, but yes, some did. A few of these were anti-Trump, but more were specifically against denying science or funding for science. Those signs would have been carried no matter who was proposing the budget cuts, no matter who removed all mention of climate science from the EPA site, no matter who was proposing defunding medical research, the NIH, and so on. Trump be damned. And too fucking bad if his little minions cannot take the heat when people protest his policies.

Most of the discussion among marchers that I heard was that it was important to move away from directly criticizing Trump for trivial issues but to directly address the short and long term effects of his proposed budget and policies.

The vast, overwhelming number of signs and marchers were advocating for science, for the funding of science, for the importance of science. Some were specific to particular areas of science, some were more general. While many of the marchers were research scientists, there were also many, many doctors, nurses, laboratorians of various kinds, as well as science enthusiasts, etc. We were also supported by many in the arts community, some of whom are science enthusiasts, and some of whom support science and funding for science on general principal. And then, there were those who marched because their lives or the lives of their children or other loved ones depending upon scientific advances. Heartbreakingly, there were those who marched to support continued research because they had lost someone they loved to a disease which has no cure (yet).

Among those who participated in March for Science were those from all political persuasions, conservative as well as liberal. Marchers included a number of older people, many young people, and even small children and babies. And a few dogs, as well. Who presumably hold no political opinions at all.

I know this because I was there.

How naive of anyone to think that using observation of actual events can be used to rebut ideologically driven tantrums.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I was at the Toronto one.

I saw a good number of anti-Tump people, but that was expected. What really saddened me was the huge number of people pushing pseudoscience and identity politics. That was so sad to see at an otherwise great event.

We need to stand up for science in Canada, especially now that we are free from Harper's tyrannical antiscience. We have a liberal proscience guy in charge now... If only we can get him to put aside the identity politics and focus on science itself.

 

[Toni]

Well, to be fair, it was quite clear from the get-go that the March for Science would not be rolling out the welcome mat for white males:



View attachment 10787

From the pictures I've seen, white males were well represented.

Yes, they were. And were prominent as speakers and organizers, too.

But I get that for some, sharing space and credit with non-white, non-males is exactly the same thing as making white males unwelcome and marginalized.

 

[Mumbles]

From the pictures I've seen, white males were well represented.

Yes, they were. And were prominent as speakers and organizers, too.

But I get that for some, sharing space and credit with non-white, non-males is exactly the same thing as making white males unwelcome and marginalized.

Ironically, a large part of why the whole "We are inclusive" message becomes important to begin with. These things often do lead to unfortunate battles over just how important it is to push such a message, but I have met very few people in STEM who aren't white cis men, who don't have some stories to tell about being singled out and discriminated against.

Even so, from everything I heard, it was a relatively minor part of the march compared to the "Don't ignore science!" message.

 

[thebeave]

From the pictures I've seen, white males were well represented.

Yes, they were. And were prominent as speakers and organizers, too.

But I get that for some, sharing space and credit with non-white, non-males is exactly the same thing as making white males unwelcome and marginalized.

So, why do you suppose that whites and males were obviously, and specifically excluded from the diversity statements? Especially given that much, if not most, of the scientific achievements throughout modern history have been due to the hard work and dedication of whites and/or males? Why be so dismissive of the contributions of those who have saved millions of lives and helped make this a much better world?

Imagine if a huge event was planned to honor, discuss, etc athletic achievement in professional sports. And a similar diversity statement was issued, except that it excluded African American males. Don't you think that would be a travesty? What's the difference between that and the MfS situations?

I'm genuinely curious how this whole anti-male, anti-white attitude has sprung up in recent years, and no one on the left (who are supposedly about fairness and equality for all), seems to think its blatant racism and sexism, and aren't willing to step up and condemn it. Just fascinating to me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yes, they were. And were prominent as speakers and organizers, too.

But I get that for some, sharing space and credit with non-white, non-males is exactly the same thing as making white males unwelcome and marginalized.

So, why do you suppose that whites and males were obviously, and specifically excluded from the diversity statements? Especially given that much, if not most, of the scientific achievements throughout modern history have been due to the hard work and dedication of whites and/or males? Why be so dismissive of the contributions of those who have saved millions of lives and helped make this a much better world?

Imagine if a huge event was planned to honor, discuss, etc athletic achievement in professional sports. And a similar diversity statement was issued, except that it excluded African American males. Don't you think that would be a travesty? What's the difference between that and the MfS situations?

I'm genuinely curious how this whole anti-male, anti-white attitude has sprung up in recent years, and no one on the left (who are supposedly about fairness and equality for all), seems to think its blatant racism and sexism, and aren't willing to step up and condemn it. Just fascinating to me.

So you want to know why the group that is trying to diversify did not include itself among the groups doing the diversifying? Kinda like asking why when we order a milkshake we don't say, "Gimme a strawberry shake with ice cream and milk in it."

 

[Toni]

Yes, they were. And were prominent as speakers and organizers, too.

But I get that for some, sharing space and credit with non-white, non-males is exactly the same thing as making white males unwelcome and marginalized.

Ironically, a large part of why the whole "We are inclusive" message becomes important to begin with. These things often do lead to unfortunate battles over just how important it is to push such a message, but I have met very few people in STEM who aren't white cis men, who don't have some stories to tell about being singled out and discriminated against.

Even so, from everything I heard, it was a relatively minor part of the march compared to the "Don't ignore science!" message.

I do understand, at least as much as a white woman in science can. I have my own stories, which pale in comparison to some female friends who are engineers, physicists, etc. Biology is relatively female friendly these days....

At the DC March, the speakers were mostly persons of color, male and female. The marchers were a pretty diverse group, from my observation. I did not attempt any counts or categorization. But male/female, young (babes in arms and strollers to school age to adult to middle aged and older adults, some making me look rather young, actually, gay/lesbian/ presumably all along the spectrum. There was a pretty steady rain throughout the day, ending just as the march reached the Capitol.

I didn't make any of the teach ins: stayed up too late talking with my friends the night before. So, I can't say much about the presenters there.

Prior to April 22, there was a lot of discussion about being inclusive. It seemed to have borne out fairly well, at least in DC, and considering the adverse weather conditions.

 

[Toni]

Yes, they were. And were prominent as speakers and organizers, too.

But I get that for some, sharing space and credit with non-white, non-males is exactly the same thing as making white males unwelcome and marginalized.

So, why do you suppose that whites and males were obviously, and specifically excluded from the diversity statements? Especially given that much, if not most, of the scientific achievements throughout modern history have been due to the hard work and dedication of whites and/or males? Why be so dismissive of the contributions of those who have saved millions of lives and helped make this a much better world?

Imagine if a huge event was planned to honor, discuss, etc athletic achievement in professional sports. And a similar diversity statement was issued, except that it excluded African American males. Don't you think that would be a travesty? What's the difference between that and the MfS situations?

I'm genuinely curious how this whole anti-male, anti-white attitude has sprung up in recent years, and no one on the left (who are supposedly about fairness and equality for all), seems to think its blatant racism and sexism, and aren't willing to step up and condemn it. Just fascinating to me.

Say what?

Sorry but I saw zero evidence of any 'anti-male, anti-white attitude.' And I mean: zero.

It seems to me that you are confusing a few things. Back when I was a child, it was indeed unusual to hear of women or persons of color (or in the US, any non-American) who worked in science. That certainly does not mean that only white men were working in the field, although it is primarily their contributions which were recognized, while those of women and persons of color were ignored or usurped. Life has changed and being female and interested in science is no longer seen as a strange thing, or something to be feared, distrusted, discouraged, or tamped down. I'm white so I won't pretend to know what it was like to be a non-white scientist 40 or 50 or more years ago. I do know that I see many more persons of color in my building, on the campus of buildings where I work, at conferences, etc. And many more women.

I mean: just google women in science and math. Or blacks in science and math. Or don't. The rest of us are not quite so ignorant as you seem to be.

The fact that there are more women, more persons of color, more LGBTQ individuals does not mean that cis white men are not welcome, or are being discriminated against. They just have to make room and are not assured of having the prominent places by virtue of their gender and color.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The fact that there are more women, more persons of color, more LGBTQ individuals does not mean that cis white men are not welcome, or are being discriminated against. They just have to make room and are not assured of having the prominent places by virtue of their gender and color.

But which bathroom do they use?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Derail? Dafuq are you talking about?
TMT and the political blockading of its construction is a legitimate science issue, that should definitely be a part of this "Science March". I very much doubt though that it will be welcome given their priorities:

The right-wing has become very antagonistic to science and math (and arithmetic). They are pretty much pulling what the Catholic Church did way back when, when the Church said they were the authority on truth. This is quite worrisome.

People protesting the telescope are doing so based on rights of the land, not because of an antagonism to science.

Hence DERAIL!

 

[Toni]

The fact that there are more women, more persons of color, more LGBTQ individuals does not mean that cis white men are not welcome, or are being discriminated against. They just have to make room and are not assured of having the prominent places by virtue of their gender and color.

But which bathroom do they use?

Yes.

 

[Mumbles]

The fact that there are more women, more persons of color, more LGBTQ individuals does not mean that cis white men are not welcome, or are being discriminated against. They just have to make room and are not assured of having the prominent places by virtue of their gender and color.

But which bathroom do they use?

Reminds me of when I was working back in Boston - the Engineering areas had far more men's bathrooms than women's, simply because it was an older building and designed for when the only women around were secretaries. The women engineers did *not* enjoy the additional walking (and neither did the women secretaries, actually). Honestly, gender discrimination, from what I've seen, has been worse than racial discrimination, in that it's more overt and outright creepy, whil.e the racial issues were generally the usual, "hold black people to a higher standard" stuff you see everywhere.

(And of course, the one trans woman I knew [or knew of] basically kept to herself entirely).

 

[Bomb#20]

For purposes of truth in advertising, I'd think it's inappropriate to call your march a march "for science" if most of the marchers are really just marching against Trump. YMMV.

As someone who was at the DC march, and who was involved with March for Science, I can attest that while there were a very few signs which were specifically anti- Trump, those signs and those marchers comprised a very small number of marchers in DC. Judging from what friends who attended other marches told me, and photos shared from other marches, this held true across all US and international marches. Personally, I marched with people who work with various defense contractors and on occasion, with DoD.

Frankly, there was tremendous discussion about whether or not anyone should carry an overtly political sign at all. Most did not, but yes, some did. A few of these were anti-Trump, but more were specifically against denying science or funding for science. Those signs would have been carried no matter who was proposing the budget cuts, no matter who removed all mention of climate science from the EPA site, no matter who was proposing defunding medical research, the NIH, and so on. Trump be damned. And too fucking bad if his little minions cannot take the heat when people protest his policies.

Most of the discussion among marchers that I heard was that it was important to move away from directly criticizing Trump for trivial issues but to directly address the short and long term effects of his proposed budget and policies.

The vast, overwhelming number of signs and marchers were advocating for science, for the funding of science, for the importance of science. Some were specific to particular areas of science, some were more general. While many of the marchers were research scientists, there were also many, many doctors, nurses, laboratorians of various kinds, as well as science enthusiasts, etc. We were also supported by many in the arts community, some of whom are science enthusiasts, and some of whom support science and funding for science on general principal. And then, there were those who marched because their lives or the lives of their children or other loved ones depending upon scientific advances. Heartbreakingly, there were those who marched to support continued research because they had lost someone they loved to a disease which has no cure (yet).

Among those who participated in March for Science were those from all political persuasions, conservative as well as liberal. Marchers included a number of older people, many young people, and even small children and babies. And a few dogs, as well. Who presumably hold no political opinions at all.

I know this because I was there.

But those observations aren't observations of the matter in dispute. For one thing, it's perfectly possible to care very little about science and still be able to figure out what's going to make your march look good. For another, most people tend to believe whatever they need to believe about themselves in order to be the heroes of their own narratives. It's quite easy for a person to convince himself that science is his motivation when the topic he's thinking about is one in which science aligns with his ideological views; it's only when science goes against his ideological views that you can tell whether science or ideology is his primary motive. When that happens, which one does he walk away from? Participants demanding more funding for research on climate change doesn't answer that question. A march full of signs demanding more funding for development of GMOs and nuclear reactors would be observational evidence against my impression.

(I should add, in all fairness, that 100% of my own personal observations of march signs were from UC Berkeley. It is possible that this was a statistically unrepresentative sample... )

 

[Bomb#20]

"Most" is a conveniently vague criterion as to make your answer non-responsive.

So you think the folks who say Trump got "most" of the votes are being too conveniently vague to allow for an objective determination that they're wrong, do you? "Most" means 50% + 1.

Moreover, the fact that someone takes the time and effort (and perhaps the risk) of protesting for a stated cause indicates that they probably have some agreement with that cause.

So do you think if the stated cause somebody is protesting for is "States' Rights", then that's probably his primary concern and presuming ulterior motives is inappropriate?

If you are contending that your post was also a strawman, I won't dispute the point.

Dude, nothing in my posts could be interpreted by rational person as claiming that a majority of protesters were upset with ____.

Dude, where the heck am I supposed to have claimed you claimed that a majority of protesters were upset with ____? You described a few particular participants you knew; so I pointed out that what you said about the people you knew was unlikely to be true of the majority. Your assertion therefore didn't contradict my opinion. What's the problem?

Familiarity with the thought processes exhibited by my fellow Americans.

Projection is a form of narcissism, not analysis. Nor is it a basis for evidence about other people. In simple terms, you have no evidence to support your claim.

Dude, you wrote to me. I was offering a perspective to thebeave, not offering a case to you. If he thinks my analysis is inconsistent with his experience with the thought processes exhibited by his fellow Americans, he's free to dismiss it.

And if you think I'm projecting, feel free to point out a topic on which I reject science.

I recall the thread you're referring to; I also recall its content. You are grossly misrepresenting it...

Even though I will bow to your expertise in gross misrepresentation and to pulling "facts" out of your ass, you are wrong.

Then you should have no trouble backing up your claims about me by quoting me.

 

[Toni]

But those observations aren't observations of the matter in dispute.

Seems like you are dismissing my observations--in person observations, I might add, as well as my own motivations and the motivations of friends I marched with, with whom I spent many hours discussing the importance of this march.

For one thing, it's perfectly possible to care very little about science and still be able to figure out what's going to make your march look good.

Again, I was there, I actually saw and talked with people, was part of the discussions of the march in Washington as well as marches in my home state. So while you may have your own ideology that you are attempting to support, you truly do not know what you are talking about with regards to this march.

For another, most people tend to believe whatever they need to believe about themselves in order to be the heroes of their own narratives.

And yet remain totally oblivious to their own motivations, it seems.

It's quite easy for a person to convince himself that science is his motivation when the topic he's thinking about is one in which science aligns with his ideological views; it's only when science goes against his ideological views that you can tell whether science or ideology is his primary motive.

So, for those of us who believed from our earliest days that the earth is round and follows an orbit around the sun only believe that for political reasons? Because we weren't flat earthers to begin with? And were somehow changed by reading science?

Were you raised Baptist, by chance? Because: wow.

When that happens, which one does he walk away from? Participants demanding more funding for research on climate change doesn't answer that question. A march full of signs demanding more funding for development of GMOs and nuclear reactors would be observational evidence against my impression.

Say what???

(I should add, in all fairness, that 100% of my own personal observations of march signs were from UC Berkeley. It is possible that this was a statistically unrepresentative sample... )

Lots of footage from marches from all over the world is widely available. If you are truly interested, you could check some of those out. Just stay off of right wing sites if you want to actually see a representation of what was out there.

 

[laughing dog]

So do you think if the stated cause somebody is protesting for is "States' Rights", then that's probably his primary concern and presuming ulterior motives is inappropriate?

I think whether or not it is a primary concern is not relevant. Nor is the primary concern probably observable.

Dude, where the heck am I supposed to have claimed you claimed that a majority of protesters were upset with ____?

In post 38 you wrote in reference to my post “Calling the majority of the protesters "upset with the accelerating trend of substituting ideology and stupidity" is about as accurate as calling the majority of the protesters at an antiabortion march "pro-life" -- no doubt a few of them are, but the ones who favor wars and executions are not pro-life.”

Dude, you wrote to me. I was offering a perspective to thebeave, not offering a case to you. If he thinks my analysis is inconsistent with his experience with the thought processes exhibited by his fellow Americans, he's free to dismiss it.

Dude, this is an open forum. When someone posts claptrap and dumbness, he or she should expect others to respond.

And if you think I'm projecting, feel free to point out a topic on which I reject science.

Dude, your analysis based on your “familiarity with the thought processes by my fellow Americans” That is a rejection of the scientific method.

 

[Bomb#20]

Seems like you are dismissing my observations--in person observations, I might add, as well as my own motivations and the motivations of friends I marched with, with whom I spent many hours discussing the importance of this march.

Well, sorry, but I'm not seeing how my hypothesis predicts anything contrary to the observations you posted. As far as I can tell from what you've written, all those hours you spent were not spent measuring whether I'm right.

For one thing, it's perfectly possible to care very little about science and still be able to figure out what's going to make your march look good.

Again, I was there, I actually saw and talked with people, was part of the discussions of the march in Washington as well as marches in my home state. So while you may have your own ideology that you are attempting to support, you truly do not know what you are talking about with regards to this march.

So tell me, in the tremendous discussion about whether or not anyone should carry an overtly political sign at all, what were the reasons offered for and against?

It's quite easy for a person to convince himself that science is his motivation when the topic he's thinking about is one in which science aligns with his ideological views; it's only when science goes against his ideological views that you can tell whether science or ideology is his primary motive.

So, for those of us who believed from our earliest days that the earth is round and follows an orbit around the sun only believe that for political reasons? Because we weren't flat earthers to begin with? And were somehow changed by reading science?

Were you raised Baptist, by chance? Because: wow.

What the heck does your response have to do with what I said? Whether the earth is round is not a politically charged issue. No, I wasn't raised Baptist, in case that's somehow relevant.

When that happens, which one does he walk away from? Participants demanding more funding for research on climate change doesn't answer that question. A march full of signs demanding more funding for development of GMOs and nuclear reactors would be observational evidence against my impression.

Say what???

My hypothesis is that the majority of the marchers have issues on which their ideological views conflict with science, and that on those issues they'll choose their ideology over science. I also hypothesize that the majority of the marchers are left-of-center. It seems likely to me, therefore, that GMOs and nuclear power are among the issues they're most likely to reject the science on, just as evolution and AGW are among the issues right-wingers are most likely to reject the science on. So if it were to turn out that most of the marchers are in favor of GMOs and nuclear power, then one or the other of my hypotheses is probably wrong.

(I should add, in all fairness, that 100% of my own personal observations of march signs were from UC Berkeley. It is possible that this was a statistically unrepresentative sample... )

Lots of footage from marches from all over the world is widely available. If you are truly interested, you could check some of those out. Just stay off of right wing sites if you want to actually see a representation of what was out there.

I'm truly interested if the content of the signs conflicts with what my hypotheses predict. But since the content you're reporting to me is consistent with my hypotheses, looking at more than I've already seen doesn't add information -- I'll just take your word for it.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think whether or not it is a primary concern is not relevant. Nor is the primary concern probably observable.

If you think it's not relevant then why bother arguing the point?

Dude, where the heck am I supposed to have claimed you claimed that a majority of protesters were upset with ____?

In post 38 you wrote in reference to my post “Calling the majority of the protesters "upset with the accelerating trend of substituting ideology and stupidity" is about as accurate as calling the majority of the protesters at an antiabortion march "pro-life" -- no doubt a few of them are, but the ones who favor wars and executions are not pro-life.”

And? That's not a claim you called them that. You called some hypothetical march participant in some possible world that, as though it were a substantive counterargument against what I was saying about typical attitudes. So I pointed out the implausibility of your statement being sufficiently generalizable to constitute a substantive counterargument.

Dude, you wrote to me. I was offering a perspective to thebeave, not offering a case to you. If he thinks my analysis is inconsistent with his experience with the thought processes exhibited by his fellow Americans, he's free to dismiss it.

Dude, this is an open forum. When someone posts claptrap and dumbness, he or she should expect others to respond.

Dude, you have not shown what I posted was claptrap or dumbness.

And if you think I'm projecting, feel free to point out a topic on which I reject science.

Dude, your analysis based on your “familiarity with the thought processes by my fellow Americans” That is a rejection of the scientific method.

Why don't you just go ahead and post an arXiv link to the peer-reviewed paper that shows most participants are more invested in science than ideology? Then I'll change my mind unless I spot a serious methodological problem. But you won't be posting any such link, will you? According to you the primary concern probably isn't even observable, so how the hell do you figure the scientific method has a damn thing to say about the point in dispute for me to be rejecting? You might as well accuse somebody of rejecting science because he's formed an opinion contrary to yours on whether the universe is deterministic or irreducibly random.

 

[Toni]

Well, sorry, but I'm not seeing how my hypothesis predicts anything contrary to the observations you posted. As far as I can tell from what you've written, all those hours you spent were not spent measuring whether I'm right.

For one thing, it's perfectly possible to care very little about science and still be able to figure out what's going to make your march look good.

Again, I was there, I actually saw and talked with people, was part of the discussions of the march in Washington as well as marches in my home state. So while you may have your own ideology that you are attempting to support, you truly do not know what you are talking about with regards to this march.

So tell me, in the tremendous discussion about whether or not anyone should carry an overtly political sign at all, what were the reasons offered for and against?

It's quite easy for a person to convince himself that science is his motivation when the topic he's thinking about is one in which science aligns with his ideological views; it's only when science goes against his ideological views that you can tell whether science or ideology is his primary motive.

So, for those of us who believed from our earliest days that the earth is round and follows an orbit around the sun only believe that for political reasons? Because we weren't flat earthers to begin with? And were somehow changed by reading science?

Were you raised Baptist, by chance? Because: wow.

What the heck does your response have to do with what I said? Whether the earth is round is not a politically charged issue. No, I wasn't raised Baptist, in case that's somehow relevant.

When that happens, which one does he walk away from? Participants demanding more funding for research on climate change doesn't answer that question. A march full of signs demanding more funding for development of GMOs and nuclear reactors would be observational evidence against my impression.

Say what???

My hypothesis is that the majority of the marchers have issues on which their ideological views conflict with science, and that on those issues they'll choose their ideology over science. I also hypothesize that the majority of the marchers are left-of-center. It seems likely to me, therefore, that GMOs and nuclear power are among the issues they're most likely to reject the science on, just as evolution and AGW are among the issues right-wingers are most likely to reject the science on. So if it were to turn out that most of the marchers are in favor of GMOs and nuclear power, then one or the other of my hypotheses is probably wrong.

(I should add, in all fairness, that 100% of my own personal observations of march signs were from UC Berkeley. It is possible that this was a statistically unrepresentative sample... )

Lots of footage from marches from all over the world is widely available. If you are truly interested, you could check some of those out. Just stay off of right wing sites if you want to actually see a representation of what was out there.

I'm truly interested if the content of the signs conflicts with what my hypotheses predict. But since the content you're reporting to me is consistent with my hypotheses, looking at more than I've already seen doesn't add information -- I'll just take your word for it.

Hey, you want to live with your delusions, who am I to disagree? Trump and Putin and the altRight are so proud of you!

 

[laughing dog]

If you think it's not relevant then why bother arguing the point?

As I have written, people usually have more than one motive, and the primary motive is not important. You are the one with the inane obsession with primary motives, not me.

And? That's not a claim you called them that. You called some hypothetical march participant in some possible world that, as though it were a substantive counterargument against what I was saying about typical attitudes. So I pointed out the implausibility of your statement being sufficiently generalizable to constitute a substantive counterargument.

I realize you honestly believe what you wrote. But, as usual, you misread what I wrote and then pulled something irrelevant out of your ass.

Dude, you have not shown what I posted was claptrap or dumbness.

Wrong.

..

You are the one making a making claims of "factr" based on your delusions. That is unscientific. It is a tacit rejection of the scientific method.