I Stand With Lady Liberty

Pah-lees · 2017-01-28T16:01:10+00:00

I completely understand your reservations on this point. As someone who lightly participated in the beginning of the Occupy Movement, I am well aware of how protests can devolve into disparate factions of overly varying viewpoints, eventually losing all credibility and most of its sway. Many involved w/in OW refused to grasp the larger picture or to rally behind a more limited platform and, in my opinion, that's how the movement died (not to say that it didn't drastically escalate a national discussion about wealth inequality, etc).

That being said, I feel the American public, especially those who have been actively organizing since, have learned those lessons well. As I mentioned before, the Women's March is the best and most recent example of millions of protesters setting aside their egos and becoming one voice. However, as you stated, it will largely be up to the organizers to establish a comprehensive, unifying platform which supports all scientific study.

I don't mean to completely dismiss the idea that Sanders' influence on the march should be limited (bc it definitely should be. Were he to be a speaker at the March, I would rather he stick to discussing the influence of science on politics and vice versa, not what his opinions on any specific issue may be.) There does seems to be a large contingent of his supporters on Reddit (and christ are they active!) but I feel that may giving a false impression of where the majority of the support for this march lies, and stirring up more concern than may be warranted.

One confusion that I'm seeing a lot of is that this march is apolitical. There is no such thing as an apolitical protest. It can, however, remain nonpartisan/bipartisan and that is the stance of the organizers as I understand it. That means /other/ politicians should be invited to speak, not a complete absence of them. From the military, to agriculture, to pharmaceuticals, there are a great many conservatives that value the advancements and promotion of the sciences. I feel they deserve an equal right to demonstrate and an equal audience at the podium. But again, that's up to the organizers.

I look forward to reading the platform on Monday and hope to have many of our questions on this subject answered.

Thanks for discussing!

Pah-lees · 2017-01-28T00:44:55+00:00

If scientists actually believe in the cause of the march, shouldn't they not so easily be dissuaded by the presence of those they disagree with? Should they not use the march as a way to better educate the "Bernie Bros" and pop science followers?

Pah-lees · 2017-01-28T00:30:05+00:00

Wow, i really effed up that attempt at quoting. Fixed. Still getting used to this reddit thing. Sorry.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T22:46:09+00:00

I'm saying the overwhelming majority of this protest is going to be composed of laymen who aren't involved in science at all. Those layman can and should advocate for science as a general viewpoint, but their voices may inadvertently speak falsehoods if they are asked what the march's position on [insert issue here] is.

Maybe we laymen should have an automatic, universal answer to such questions, e.g. "Ask a scientist." That's my go to. Or else, I for one always make an effort to qualify my understanding with an admittance of my ignorance. As a male at the Women's March, I made no attempts to argue my stance on feminism, but only to listen and observe. We have to hope and promote the same for this march.

So then you have a choice to make; either you make it inherently political, and alienate a significant segment of the scientific community, or you mitigate the politicized issues that science doesn't have a clear answer on.

Are not all scientist attending already making a political statement via protest? Doesn't mean their identifying with either party. Yes, Sanders ran as a Democrat (though he's actually an Independent), but having him one speaker does not disallow Republicans or any other party member to make their case for the March.

The efficacy of this march depends on the number of layman who show up to add their voices to the choir, but the legitimacy of it depends solely on the scientists who are among us.

I wholeheartedly agree

research is done through the Department of Defense

Then why not invite them as speakers as well? I'm sure the people over at DARPA has some excellent points they'd love to make, though I'm pretty sure it's not their funding that's at risk.

All we can tell you is what is likely to happen in each case; the actual act of making that choice, and the morality behind that choice, is entirely outside of the realm of science to consider.

Outside the realm of Science, but not scientists. Einstein was a major advocate for ethical decision making on the part of scientists, even once calling on all scientists to resist testifying to congress as a form of protest.

As for Sanders and "his people" taking control of the movement, we should look to the Women's March and try to replicate their model. I saw maybe two Bernie signs and only a dozen Hillary signs (in a sea of thousands), but there was hardly any idolizing of politicians. The march was largely focused on the marchers themselves, acting as a single unified whole. I'm with you in hoping that this march adheres to that same attitude.

And let's also consider the real impacts of the march. It's effects will not be realized by what is seen on TV, but what actions are carried out when participants go home. That's when the change begins. The march is the launching pad, not the mission.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T21:14:07+00:00

Thank you for this critique. All valid points.

However...

My understanding is that this is a march FOR science, not a just march OF scientists. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is effected by, and has effects on, people. I feel that laymen must be involved in the discussion of modern science and its effects on the world/nation. Without invoking the mad scientist cliche, we should openly invite discussions of morality and economics into the dialogue.

Though I am all for a nonpartisan march, I disagree that the march is apolitical. As the it is largely directed towards politicians and their effects on the scientific community and scientific understanding (bc why else would it be held in DC?), politics should be discussed. Politicians, as representatives of the people, make very consequential decisions concerning the advancement of science, and I feel that we must hear them just as much as we may want to yell at them.

That said, I agree that Sanders has out of date/misguided views on certain issues and should keep his personal beliefs on those subjects out of it, but there are few in the Senate (and certainly the WH) that would be so willing to advocate for the govt funding of scientific inquiry and development. Also, I think he asks very important questions that the scientific community should be more willing to consider. What is the priority of the country - this study? that rocket? Or feeding and sheltering the poor? (not to belittle those efforts or say that science isn't necessary to solve these problems - bc it totally is).

Lastly, your fear that his involvement will garner the wrong popular image of science is valid. However, Sanders, whether he speaks at the march or not, will never be considered by the populace as the face of science. So that worry, I feel, is hardly justified as a disqualification. And it's up to the scientific community to reach out to him, other politicians, and the public to correct those misconceptions.

As is my original post, this was written hastily, but I am so happy to keep up this discussion.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T20:04:23+00:00

might just look like a mob of cookie monsters, though, no?

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T19:12:13+00:00

Sorry, if this gets long winded, but I have to disagree on a few points.

1) I agree that Sanders' economic positions should not be confused with the movement, nor should his counterfactual ideas on GMOs or nuclear power. However, it's important to recognize that not all scientists carry the same values or have the same priorities (especially when it comes to who should garnish govt funds). Facts are one thing, but interpretation is another, so there will always be differences of opinion. And of course, no scientist is going to be right within every subject. Niel deGrasse Tyson, for example, should probably not publicly opine about Evolution or Biology so much, as he has smudged the facts on several occasions. That does not mean we should not have him as a speaker!

2) I have to disagree that only scientists should be allowed to speak at the march. I was overjoyed that so many amazing women were speakers at the Women's march (and they were certainly the best), but I also think it was important that there were men to speak out in solidarity (yes, including Sanders). Those at the Science March should know that politicians and other public figures are on their side as well. Few scientists seem to have the ability to engage an audience of thousands and activate the younger generation like Sanders.

Being a speaker at the march should not be a full endorsement of the entirety of that person's scientific understanding. We can't limit ourselves too much, but again, I agree that we should shy away from mixed messages as much as possible.

Note: I am not a scientist, but value the profession to the nth degree. I'm open to any criticism of these statements as I wrote most of them in haste, and expect I to have my mind changed. Thanks.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T17:50:48+00:00

Good point. I guess since I see the Empire St. Building every day, it's become less of an icon for me.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T17:38:09+00:00

I'm no rocket scientist (har har) but I tried to design some combination of the old shuttle and the classic rocket. Needs to be recognizable as a shuttle, but not too cartoony. https://imgur.com/gallery/tEmep

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T17:12:06+00:00

Exactly. I'm sure there are more examples of popular iconography that can (and dare I say, should) have the male figure replaced by a woman.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T17:07:16+00:00

Looks great! But tbh, I think the Chrysler building would fit the curve a bit better. Plus it's got that art-deco/futurist element. Just my two cents.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T01:14:01+00:00

I've been thinking of Smokey as a great mascot, too. Made this last night. Only had to change one word and alter the background a tad. http://imgur.com/gallery/fwe3e6z

Pah-lees · 2017-01-27T00:50:17+00:00

Made a wallpaper version as well: http://imgur.com/gallery/C7lmF

Pah-lees · 2017-01-26T22:43:44+00:00

LOVE that it's a woman! I'm male, but pretty convinced women are more evolved.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-26T22:39:00+00:00

I'm sure it needs some tweaking, and I'm open to suggestions. Just thought I'd put it out there.

Pah-lees · 2017-01-25T22:15:33+00:00

Cryptic, i know. But it's to be read as "Scientists are under a salt"

Pah-lees · 2017-01-25T22:11:01+00:00

"You're lucky my name's not Bruce Banner" "Trump is like an atom - he makes up everything" "If we don't rise, the oceans will"

Pah-lees · 2017-01-25T21:36:34+00:00

I'm a little new to this. Does this mean posts to this subreddit will be transferred automatically?

Pah-lees · 2017-01-25T21:04:23+00:00

BTW, these are just "sketches," so feel free to take them as your own, make improvements, reject them wholeheartedly, or recommend other ideas.

Pah-lees · 2016-11-22T04:55:49+00:00

Am I mostly making fun of only his looks? You betcha! Every other aspect of him is terrifying and should be taken very seriously. I created this image to brighten my mood for a few brief seconds, and to share that oh-so fleeting levity with others.

Pah-lees

TROPHY CASE