Take a photo of a barcode or cover
zyad 's review for:
Thinking in Systems: A Primer
by Donella H. Meadows
Keep your politics out of my science!
I will not make a case for or against the author’s exposition - You don’t ask a chimp for feedback on your poetry. I am not an engineer, nor did I ever care to be. It would be dishonest of me to speak as if my opinions were worth considering without the practical and theoretical expertise to judge her claims. The scientific account made reasonable sense to me, and the book a decently entertaining read - that’s as much as your layman can claim.
What I will say however - I have nothing against an opinionated statement; I actually sympathize with people who can speak with the courage of their convictions, but that only goes when they’re stated as such - opinions.
But when you come to me with a sciency title, a few words of jargon, a bunch of flow charts, and a couple of formulas only to push for your unsupported and arbitrary political prescriptions - as if they were the result of an honest scientific inquiry - you’re not pursuing a scientific agenda, quite the opposite. You’re shoehorning facts to fit a set of a priori conclusions, and someone who does that does not get to call themselves a scientist.
I could mention a few specific examples to illustrate my point, but doing so would likely reveal my own political stance and have me fall into the same sort of hypocrisy that I’m critiquing. The argument I’m making for the integrity of scientific discourse should transcends such distinctions. Right or left, at least no one will accuse me of cherry-picking.
This is not to denigrate the value of a subjectivity as such, but there is a proper place for everything. If you want to spread your political views, sell your work as a manifesto, not as a primer; because whatever this book does, it serves as neither.
I will not make a case for or against the author’s exposition - You don’t ask a chimp for feedback on your poetry. I am not an engineer, nor did I ever care to be. It would be dishonest of me to speak as if my opinions were worth considering without the practical and theoretical expertise to judge her claims. The scientific account made reasonable sense to me, and the book a decently entertaining read - that’s as much as your layman can claim.
What I will say however - I have nothing against an opinionated statement; I actually sympathize with people who can speak with the courage of their convictions, but that only goes when they’re stated as such - opinions.
But when you come to me with a sciency title, a few words of jargon, a bunch of flow charts, and a couple of formulas only to push for your unsupported and arbitrary political prescriptions - as if they were the result of an honest scientific inquiry - you’re not pursuing a scientific agenda, quite the opposite. You’re shoehorning facts to fit a set of a priori conclusions, and someone who does that does not get to call themselves a scientist.
I could mention a few specific examples to illustrate my point, but doing so would likely reveal my own political stance and have me fall into the same sort of hypocrisy that I’m critiquing. The argument I’m making for the integrity of scientific discourse should transcends such distinctions. Right or left, at least no one will accuse me of cherry-picking.
This is not to denigrate the value of a subjectivity as such, but there is a proper place for everything. If you want to spread your political views, sell your work as a manifesto, not as a primer; because whatever this book does, it serves as neither.