Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause.

If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason.

If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research.

Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that...

Starting with the answer and rejecting anything that doesn't support it is not how research is supposed to work.

Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious.

I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones). It's a bad analogy, evokes emotion, and ultimately it typically does a disservice to the argument intended.

Astronomical books regarding heliocentric theory were on the banned book list for centuries.

The banned book list was compiled and maintained by the Church. We can split words whether Copernicus or Galileo were harangued in person and to what degree, but nascent modern astronomy was very much in the scope of Catholic censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_t...

> Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact.

I’m not sure why it has suddenly become so popular to claim that every single historical fact is a myth. Galileo’s prosecution by the Church is not only well-documented, John Paul II. officially apologized for it in 1992. He might have looked into their archives before doing that.

I swear, going around smugly claiming “Only sheeple still believe that theory” about random facts doesn’t make a person seem nearly as smart as they might think it does.

> I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones)

Could you provide some examples of better stories to use instead?

> It has been debunked many, many times.

Could you link some example of those many, many times?

> It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that.

This might be the most potentially fascinating comment in the thread. In what way is the research of much of social psychology hurting DEI?

As far as I know, based on my limited understanding of the field, there's not a lot of research that's performed/approved/funded in that field where people know that the research could yield some "politically incorrect" data or conclusions.

> The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI.

Demagogues will use any factoid for their own goals, and racists will use things to promote racism, but that's not an argument to stop research into biology, sociology, psychology, behavioral econ, etc.

That sounds gross and corrupt.

Then Desi's cause should me adjusted, not science.

You're sorta wrong. Most papers help it, but most papers are pretty shoddy...

The good ones do often hurt the DEI cause though.