价值观在科学中很重要，事实也是如此:对金格拉斯的回应

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1162/qss_c_00197

Kyle Siler

{"title":"价值观在科学中很重要，事实也是如此:对金格拉斯的回应","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

12.10

自引率

12.50%

发文量

审稿时长

22 weeks

期刊介绍：