Values matter in science, so do facts: Response to Gingras

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Kyle Siler
{"title":"Values matter in science, so do facts: Response to Gingras","authors":"Kyle Siler","doi":"10.1162/qss_c_00197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following my letter to QSS (Siler, 2021), Yves Gingras (2022) responded with a variety of bad faith arguments, ad hominem attacks, and hyperbole. Gingras repeatedly distorted what I actually wrote, then attacked the distortion. Straw men might be convenient interlocutors, and can provide ballast for hot takes, but seldom yield intellectual progress. In his letter, Gingras broadly posited a false dichotomy, with “rational,” apolitical stalwarts (including himself ) protecting the integrity of modern science against an incursion of hysterical, moralizing social justice warriors hostile to unpopular truths. Not only does this perspective betray a facile understanding of modern scientific communication, it also entails the fallacious notion that scientific empirics and underlying values are mutually exclusive.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"485-487"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following my letter to QSS (Siler, 2021), Yves Gingras (2022) responded with a variety of bad faith arguments, ad hominem attacks, and hyperbole. Gingras repeatedly distorted what I actually wrote, then attacked the distortion. Straw men might be convenient interlocutors, and can provide ballast for hot takes, but seldom yield intellectual progress. In his letter, Gingras broadly posited a false dichotomy, with “rational,” apolitical stalwarts (including himself ) protecting the integrity of modern science against an incursion of hysterical, moralizing social justice warriors hostile to unpopular truths. Not only does this perspective betray a facile understanding of modern scientific communication, it also entails the fallacious notion that scientific empirics and underlying values are mutually exclusive.
价值观在科学中很重要,事实也是如此:对金格拉斯的回应
在我给QSS的信(Siler,2021)之后,伊夫·金格拉斯(Yves Gingras,2022)用各种不诚实的论点、针对人的攻击和夸张来回应。Gingras反复歪曲我实际写的东西,然后攻击这种歪曲。稻草人可能是方便的对话者,可以为热门话题提供压舱石,但很少在智力上取得进步。在他的信中,Gingras广泛地提出了一种错误的二分法,“理性的”非政治的坚定分子(包括他自己)保护现代科学的完整性,防止歇斯底里、道德化的社会正义战士入侵,他们敌视不受欢迎的真理。这种观点不仅暴露了对现代科学传播的肤浅理解,还包含了科学经验和潜在价值观相互排斥的错误观念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信