AIBU to think we should be funding this BS?

What kind of agenda is it to go actively looking for ‘bs’ in ‘non scientific academia’ sociology and education?

Since when is thinking in the humanities ‘BS’? The sector is in enough trouble and human thought is under enough threat without people stoking culture wars because they’ve got a bit of time on their hands.

There's a difference between indiscriminately branding so-called "soft" subjects as bullshit and recognising that there can indeed be bullshit research within an otherwise worthwhile area of study.

Sociology is paid for by us the taxpayer. Other departments like medicine or engineering may well attract independent funding. But who on their right mind would pay someone to concoct that word salad?
Defund Sociology now.

What kind of agenda is it to go actively looking for ‘bs’ in ‘non scientific academia’ sociology and education?

Since when is thinking in the humanities ‘BS’? The sector is in enough trouble and human thought is under enough threat without people stoking culture wars because they’ve got a bit of time on their hands.

Maybe the sector is in trouble for good reason?

Maybe its not fit for purpose when uts churning out a load of research thats pointless?

There's a difference between indiscriminately branding so-called "soft" subjects as bullshit and recognising that there can indeed be bullshit research within an otherwise worthwhile area of study.

Again though, that's subjective.

So what do you suggest? A huge amount within the arts, humanities, languages and social sciences is subjective. But rigorous scholarship should go at least some way towards determining what is worthwhile and what is total bullshit.

Although these days even biological sex is apparently subjective, so who knows...?!

I struggle to see the relevance of your final sentence although I suppose it does give something away about your position.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what do you suggest". What do I suggest about what?

I mean if you just dismiss everything as subjective then where do you go from there? Does that mean that all art criticism, for example, is equally good/bad as it's all subjective? That's all I'm saying.

The relevance of my final sentence is that the obvious argument in this debate is that the hard sciences are not subjective, so I was including a possible counter example.

I think there are certainly important issues to consider here, but just saying, "it's all subjective" doesn't really advance the discussion. In my opinion.

I had to put that through chat gtp to understand it; my response is that trans is over represented in pride news etc on the bbc and the media do not have a correct social representation at all, and he ahoo be careful what he wishes for.

As, for example, well over half of trans people in prison are convicted of sexual abuse/ assault crimes. That definitely doesn’t come through on algorithms. If anything it’s the opposite.

By creating that research article and forming the false conclusion it has, it’s contributing to the algorithm that says trans people are poorly rep represented in the media.

chat gtp response below:

In layman’s terms, it’s basically saying:
Algorithms aren’t as neutral or objective as we often assume. They can inherit and reproduce society’s old ways of categorising people—especially the idea that everyone must fit neatly into “male” or “female.” For trans people, this can lead to being misclassified, monitored, excluded, or treated as a problem by digital systems.
A few of the more academic phrases mean:

• “Critical genealogy” → Looking back at the history of an idea to understand where it came from and how it developed.
• “Colonial classificatory violence of binarity” → The historical practice, particularly through colonialism, of forcing people into rigid categories, such as male/female, and treating people who don’t fit those categories as abnormal or inferior.
• “Bureaucratic administrative violence” → Governments and institutions turning those categories into official systems: passports, IDs, forms, databases, healthcare records, etc.
• “Automation in contemporary algorithmic violence” → Computers and algorithms now automatically making decisions based on those same categories.
• “Technooptimist ‘objectivity’” → The belief that technology and algorithms are naturally neutral, fair, and objective simply because they’re mathematical/computerised.
• “Necropolitical” → A complicated term referring to systems of power that determine whose lives are protected, valued, or allowed to flourish and whose lives are exposed to harm, neglect, or even death.
• “Cisnormative” → Assuming that being cisgender (identifying with the sex/gender assigned at birth) is the normal or default state.
• “Trans body is classified and translated as information” → A person’s identity gets reduced to data fields and categories in a computer system.
• “Marked-as-different” → The system identifies someone as outside the assumed norm.
• “Binary valorisation of life itself” → Society treats the male/female binary as the legitimate or preferred way of organising and understanding human life.

I mean, that's something a 15 year old could tell you, isn't it. It's only the obscure language that makes it seem complicated, it's totally banal.

I do, ultimately, believe in the idea of academia. But at the moment, and particularly in areas like sociology, it is filled with garbage, and rather dim people who should be working in a shop.

Not only should it not be funded, it's not sustainable, and will collapse.

I had to put that through chat gtp to understand it; my response is that trans is over represented in pride news etc on the bbc and the media do not have a correct social representation at all, and he ahoo be careful what he wishes for.

As, for example, well over half of trans people in prison are convicted of sexual abuse/ assault crimes. That definitely doesn’t come through on algorithms. If anything it’s the opposite.

By creating that research article and forming the false conclusion it has, it’s contributing to the algorithm that says trans people are poorly rep represented in the media.

chat gtp response below:

In layman’s terms, it’s basically saying:
Algorithms aren’t as neutral or objective as we often assume. They can inherit and reproduce society’s old ways of categorising people—especially the idea that everyone must fit neatly into “male” or “female.” For trans people, this can lead to being misclassified, monitored, excluded, or treated as a problem by digital systems.
A few of the more academic phrases mean:

• “Critical genealogy” → Looking back at the history of an idea to understand where it came from and how it developed.
• “Colonial classificatory violence of binarity” → The historical practice, particularly through colonialism, of forcing people into rigid categories, such as male/female, and treating people who don’t fit those categories as abnormal or inferior.
• “Bureaucratic administrative violence” → Governments and institutions turning those categories into official systems: passports, IDs, forms, databases, healthcare records, etc.
• “Automation in contemporary algorithmic violence” → Computers and algorithms now automatically making decisions based on those same categories.
• “Technooptimist ‘objectivity’” → The belief that technology and algorithms are naturally neutral, fair, and objective simply because they’re mathematical/computerised.
• “Necropolitical” → A complicated term referring to systems of power that determine whose lives are protected, valued, or allowed to flourish and whose lives are exposed to harm, neglect, or even death.
• “Cisnormative” → Assuming that being cisgender (identifying with the sex/gender assigned at birth) is the normal or default state.
• “Trans body is classified and translated as information” → A person’s identity gets reduced to data fields and categories in a computer system.
• “Marked-as-different” → The system identifies someone as outside the assumed norm.
• “Binary valorisation of life itself” → Society treats the male/female binary as the legitimate or preferred way of organising and understanding human life.

It's interesting how the author links modern day classifications to binary distinctions imposed by colonialist/colonialism. That's another way of looking at how western - what we might now call global North - ideals and norms were imposed on other cultures and societies, something which resonates to this day. Do you think AI poses a risk to academic exclusivity?

Again though, that's subjective.

Do you have a source for your claim that over half of trans people jn prison are there for sex crimes, please?

There’s two things going on here; science v social culture and stereotyping. The latter is pretending to be the former.

It’s a common lazy habit or deliberate obfuscation (take your subjective pick) to conflate well recognised power / rights issues with the trans debate.

I assumed the op had chosen this paper randomly rather than using it to make a specific point, although perhaps not. However, to address your point, I don't think it's about "the trans debate", whatever that may be. I think it's an examination of the power structures inherent in imposing binarism - of all or any kind - on peoples, encompassing the colonial roots of that forced distinction. But that's just my subjective view based on the abstract!