I actually think the problems with academic freedom in science are worse. Not worse in scale, but worse because they are more focussed and because they more directly hinder the search for objective truth.
I think it depends on how you define worse. I definitely agree the problems with academic freedom are more pervasive in the humanities. But they are qualitatively different in STEM in ways that (to me) seem worse. Large numbers of people in STEM will not even notice it because it only affects certain research directions; many others simply trust the nonsense coming from outside as they think it has the same rigour. But I think it has a stronger negative effect on the pursuit of objective truth and overall knowledge, and there is much less of a realisation it is even there.
Would you say there's a kind of naive moral realism abroad in STEM at the moment, which makes certain people in the field especially susceptible to "critical" approaches? Whereas those in the humanities fields (more used to the "critical" perspective and its limitations) are in a sense slightly inoculated?
The upside is - and this is just my theory based on some personal observations - those in STEM who see the light (or the darkness, depending on how you want to frame it), they are somewhat likelier to become advocates for free speech and academic freedom.
“In developing countries with conservative cultures, liberal scholars report threats to academic freedom. In developed countries with liberal cultures (i.e. Western ones), conservative scholars report such threats.”
More precisely ** conservative cultures ** should read fundamentalist or traditionalist; as so often those of the left or socialist bent spare no opportunity to bring conservative in the western political sense to an alignment with the primitive fundamentalism of less developed societies.
What we do see, with increasing and alarming regularity, is an alignment of primitive fundamentalism (nay fascistic) with radical socialists.
I actually think the problems with academic freedom in science are worse. Not worse in scale, but worse because they are more focussed and because they more directly hinder the search for objective truth.
In your opinion, what are the worst academic freedom problems in science?
1. The ongoing distortion of the scientific record.
2. The fact that censorship targets precisely some of the areas that we know least about.
3. The embedding of these policies and practices in scientific journals
4. And by research funders
5. The loss of merit as the key metric to evaluate scientific works.
A recent twitter thread:
https://x.com/ObhishekSaha/status/1834221650495045987?t=nz85Qhjvlj18k7vRi5hzfw&s=19
An essay by Krylov:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475
(The papers related to my twitter thread explain the key problems in far more detail; happy to send links to them)
Thanks! Tbh, I need a bit of convincing that STEM is worse for academic freedom than the humanities, but will read these with interest.
I think it depends on how you define worse. I definitely agree the problems with academic freedom are more pervasive in the humanities. But they are qualitatively different in STEM in ways that (to me) seem worse. Large numbers of people in STEM will not even notice it because it only affects certain research directions; many others simply trust the nonsense coming from outside as they think it has the same rigour. But I think it has a stronger negative effect on the pursuit of objective truth and overall knowledge, and there is much less of a realisation it is even there.
Would you say there's a kind of naive moral realism abroad in STEM at the moment, which makes certain people in the field especially susceptible to "critical" approaches? Whereas those in the humanities fields (more used to the "critical" perspective and its limitations) are in a sense slightly inoculated?
Absolutely!! You hit the nail on the head.
The upside is - and this is just my theory based on some personal observations - those in STEM who see the light (or the darkness, depending on how you want to frame it), they are somewhat likelier to become advocates for free speech and academic freedom.
Thoughtful and nuanced, as usual, Thomas. Thank you.
Thank you Lisa - very kind of you :-) Hope you're well!
Interesting conflation of terms …
“In developing countries with conservative cultures, liberal scholars report threats to academic freedom. In developed countries with liberal cultures (i.e. Western ones), conservative scholars report such threats.”
More precisely ** conservative cultures ** should read fundamentalist or traditionalist; as so often those of the left or socialist bent spare no opportunity to bring conservative in the western political sense to an alignment with the primitive fundamentalism of less developed societies.
What we do see, with increasing and alarming regularity, is an alignment of primitive fundamentalism (nay fascistic) with radical socialists.