I'm an activist about childhood poverty and education. This makes its way into my data science work because I pursue projects and analyses that allow me to understand how poverty affects education progress. I often explicitly state my biases, because I am sure my interpretation of data is colored by my pre-existing beliefs. Yet, I often discover analyses that I wouldn't otherwise have considered due to my beliefs — and I have integrity — I continually update my beliefs based on data. So, on one hand I agree that being an activist can bias one's interpretation of data, but I also think that the biases can be essential for generating useful hypotheses to guide analysis.

> I feel this is so obvious that requires no further explanation, but I might get massive downvotes for saying this.

... you won't explain why you believe this and then complains that no explaining it will get you downvote?

You are aware that to be able to contest your logic, we need to be aware of your logic, right?

Okay so I'll make a guess, the fact that they defends a cause, their bias might affect how they present data? Is that why you believe they can't be a data scientist? That's a pretty naïve view of the world sadly. The fact that someone doesn't act like an activist, doesn't make them unbiased sadly. The only thing that it change is how aware you are from a potential bias.

> being a "data scientist" is inherently incompatible with being an activist

This is just silly. So if a medical doctor becomes an activist on diabetes, they're no longer a medical doctor?

when did I mention "medical doctor"?

Based on your logic of "if X can no longer be Y". Or are only statisticians/analysts somehow effected by this?

wow.

You didn't support your argument with any explanation, so there's no room for "wow" non-statements when people interpret your argument in a way that you don't understand.

Your argument appeared to be that someone who is an activist can't also have a role that requires discipline and focus while interpreting messy data. In that case, there's no difference between that person being a data scientist or a medical professional.

Do you care to expand on your argument, and perhaps provide support as to why, for example, it's okay for a medical professional to also be an activist but not for a data scientist or tax accountant? Where's the line, and why?

I think they were saying that scientists who work around politicized topics are disregarded as scientists when they do any activism.

Feeling that something requires no explanation is a rationalization for not having any explanation.

Can you please define activism for me, in your own words?

I'd hate to try to utilize my legally protected free expression rights, but accidentally do activism instead, so any tips or tricks you have would be greatly appreciated.

> Right now, she is apparently an activist.

And?

First, just because you are an activist doesn't mean you deserve to have cops point guns at your kids. That smacks of harassment.

Second, the charges keep mutating. The wrongdoing should be what was in the warrant. That smacks of harassment.

Third, Florida leadership has been diddling with the official numbers so continuously throughout the entire epidemic that it has lost all credibility.

The Bayesian priors suggest taking what DeSantis and Co are saying with extreme skepticism.

Especially since if Rebekah Jones were really wrong, they just wouldn't care about her at all.