«I am not placing truth above consequence; I just think that the pursuit of knowledge is not the root of the issue here».
This contradicts your previous statement: «Scientific research is done for knowledge's sake and not for anything else». And as much as you displace the concern for truth-seeking towards a concern for progress-seeking, those two are part of the same construct. «Progress»-seeking is a western values based endeavour that translate into thinking constant technological discovery and implementation, constant production, power-serving knowledge (because the trope of objectivity serves dominant standpoints (Young, 1990)) are inherently *good*.
«I have to take issue with the examples you use to try to prove your points. It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad." From your pro-gay perspective, these research topics are obviously cause for alarm. However, to someone who is anti-gay, the goal of your research would cause heart palpitations as well.»
Yep, anti-gay research inherently is «bad». I consider it legitimate to have values direct the angles of my research. And I have the honesty to admit it and to point where they are. And yes, I consider my position more legitimate than the ones anti-gay folks adopt. Why, because I am a human being who believes in inclusion. You imply that the act of researching is neutral. It is not. That data is also neutral. It is not. It is selected and/or couched in terms that are value based. And you haven’t answered to the fact that all searchers who claim to be objective are not. Everyone, unconsciously, is selecting topics according to personal investments. And now, add this to the fact that White, heterosexual males searchers are over-represented and over-funded in academia (by over-represented white, heterosexual male research agency funders who get to select what research projects are more «important») because of the specific dynamics of historical and current imperialism, and you have a very dangerous cocktail on your hands. Whites, males and heterosexuals have more say in the direction our research is going – without the global population being consulted in any way.
You claim that values should not have a say in the research topic we are selecting. However, I am pretty certain you would object to research that is aimed at measuring how long human beings can survive when left in cold water, like nazi doctors did on concentration camp inmates – all this in a context where no other way of experimentation was possible to obtain such data. If you are ready to say that there is, here, a limit on the research topic that should be researched, then you are ready to admit that, per se, there can be limits on some research topics.
«The act of investigating these topics is not a bad thing.»
Even though non-scholars are not privy to everything that is happening on in our spheres, they regularly get a glimpse of what research angles are adopted. And that sends them messages. The marked emphasis on racial and sex intelligence and the way these were couched were sending the message that there was something problematic with being a woman and being non-White. The marked emphasis on the «origins of homosexuality» (and not on sexual orientation in general, that is, including heterosexuality) sends the message there is something wrong with homosexuality, whereas there is nothing problematic with heterosexuality or no worthwhile knowledge to be gleaned from studying it.
«They've found genes that may have a link to homosexuality - this is pure knowledge.»
Actually they haven’t. The research claiming so has been «debunked». But ok, let’s say they have for the sake of the argument.
no subject
This contradicts your previous statement: «Scientific research is done for knowledge's sake and not for anything else». And as much as you displace the concern for truth-seeking towards a concern for progress-seeking, those two are part of the same construct. «Progress»-seeking is a western values based endeavour that translate into thinking constant technological discovery and implementation, constant production, power-serving knowledge (because the trope of objectivity serves dominant standpoints (Young, 1990)) are inherently *good*.
«I have to take issue with the examples you use to try to prove your points. It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad." From your pro-gay perspective, these research topics are obviously cause for alarm. However, to someone who is anti-gay, the goal of your research would cause heart palpitations as well.»
Yep, anti-gay research inherently is «bad». I consider it legitimate to have values direct the angles of my research. And I have the honesty to admit it and to point where they are. And yes, I consider my position more legitimate than the ones anti-gay folks adopt. Why, because I am a human being who believes in inclusion. You imply that the act of researching is neutral. It is not. That data is also neutral. It is not. It is selected and/or couched in terms that are value based. And you haven’t answered to the fact that all searchers who claim to be objective are not. Everyone, unconsciously, is selecting topics according to personal investments. And now, add this to the fact that White, heterosexual males searchers are over-represented and over-funded in academia (by over-represented white, heterosexual male research agency funders who get to select what research projects are more «important») because of the specific dynamics of historical and current imperialism, and you have a very dangerous cocktail on your hands. Whites, males and heterosexuals have more say in the direction our research is going – without the global population being consulted in any way.
You claim that values should not have a say in the research topic we are selecting. However, I am pretty certain you would object to research that is aimed at measuring how long human beings can survive when left in cold water, like nazi doctors did on concentration camp inmates – all this in a context where no other way of experimentation was possible to obtain such data. If you are ready to say that there is, here, a limit on the research topic that should be researched, then you are ready to admit that, per se, there can be limits on some research topics.
«The act of investigating these topics is not a bad thing.»
Even though non-scholars are not privy to everything that is happening on in our spheres, they regularly get a glimpse of what research angles are adopted. And that sends them messages. The marked emphasis on racial and sex intelligence and the way these were couched were sending the message that there was something problematic with being a woman and being non-White. The marked emphasis on the «origins of homosexuality» (and not on sexual orientation in general, that is, including heterosexuality) sends the message there is something wrong with homosexuality, whereas there is nothing problematic with heterosexuality or no worthwhile knowledge to be gleaned from studying it.
«They've found genes that may have a link to homosexuality - this is pure knowledge.»
Actually they haven’t. The research claiming so has been «debunked». But ok, let’s say they have for the sake of the argument.