Critical Environmental Theory

[Chris]

I don't know why you posted this, it is very boring. The article isn't about ecology, it is about our colonial history (U.S. and European countries) distorting the fossil record. If that is true, then
the science of biodiversity is distorted. Many of the research destinations are controlled by the U.S. with China, the UK, and Germany also controlling much research. This has nothing to do
with politics and is solely about science. It is all about improving our understanding of paleontology. It has nothing to do with critical race theory.

Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity | Nature Ecology & Evolution

"Neocolonialism—whereby extractive research practices developed during European colonial expansion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are maintained in the current century by other parties not previously involved in the colonizing agenda—is also apparent from our data."

"The first step towards conducting research that is more equitable and ethical is to acknowledge that scientific colonialism is prevalent in palaeontology and that knowledge production is driven by global power relations, as demonstrated here. In many field-based disciplines, where a portion of the work has been undertaken by local scientists, their contribution is sometimes acknowledged in the form of co-authorship. However, there is a notable lack of publications being led by local scientists in many regions outside of North America and Europe (Extended Data Fig. 9)."

" Many sets of recommendations for curbing scientific colonialism and exploitative research have already been drawn up for other fields such as genomics, marine science and ecology, which are also applicable to palaeontology13,18,51,52."

Indeed it is about neocolonialism. Neocolonialism is a branch of Critical Theory. Yet here is Critical Theory being published in Nature Ecology & Evolution. Now you're smart enough to why I am critical of it.

[Common Sense]

I don't know why you posted this, it is very boring. The article isn't about ecology, it is about our colonial history (U.S. and European countries) distorting the fossil record. If that is true, then
the science of biodiversity is distorted. Many of the research destinations are controlled by the U.S. with China, the UK, and Germany also controlling much research. This has nothing to do
with politics and is solely about science. It is all about improving our understanding of paleontology. It has nothing to do with critical race theory.

Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity | Nature Ecology & Evolution

"Neocolonialism—whereby extractive research practices developed during European colonial expansion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are maintained in the current century by other parties not previously involved in the colonizing agenda—is also apparent from our data."

"The first step towards conducting research that is more equitable and ethical is to acknowledge that scientific colonialism is prevalent in palaeontology and that knowledge production is driven by global power relations, as demonstrated here. In many field-based disciplines, where a portion of the work has been undertaken by local scientists, their contribution is sometimes acknowledged in the form of co-authorship. However, there is a notable lack of publications being led by local scientists in many regions outside of North America and Europe (Extended Data Fig. 9)."

" Many sets of recommendations for curbing scientific colonialism and exploitative research have already been drawn up for other fields such as genomics, marine science and ecology, which are also applicable to palaeontology13,18,51,52."

Apparently some people are so fragile that they think this is an attack on them, rather than simply a theory regarding the socioeconomic impact on the accuracy of the fossil record. Honest and accurate analysis is now somehow divisive. So odd.

[Peter1469]

I don't know why you posted this, it is very boring. The article isn't about ecology, it is about our colonial history (U.S. and European countries) distorting the fossil record. If that is true, then
the science of biodiversity is distorted. Many of the research destinations are controlled by the U.S. with China, the UK, and Germany also controlling much research. This has nothing to do
with politics and is solely about science. It is all about improving our understanding of paleontology. It has nothing to do with critical race theory.

Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity | Nature Ecology & Evolution

"Neocolonialism—whereby extractive research practices developed during European colonial expansion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are maintained in the current century by other parties not previously involved in the colonizing agenda—is also apparent from our data."

"The first step towards conducting research that is more equitable and ethical is to acknowledge that scientific colonialism is prevalent in palaeontology and that knowledge production is driven by global power relations, as demonstrated here. In many field-based disciplines, where a portion of the work has been undertaken by local scientists, their contribution is sometimes acknowledged in the form of co-authorship. However, there is a notable lack of publications being led by local scientists in many regions outside of North America and Europe (Extended Data Fig. 9)."

" Many sets of recommendations for curbing scientific colonialism and exploitative research have already been drawn up for other fields such as genomics, marine science and ecology, which are also applicable to palaeontology13,18,51,52."

The thesis of the article is all about politics (who gets what, when, where, and why) and nothing about science.

It claims that the first world contributes 97% to the collection and coalition of fossil data. So it must be biased. That is quite the leap. Paleontologists from the first world do not collect fossils only from home, but globally, even from the 3rd world.

It is more of the critical theory crap.

[Chris]

Apparently some people are so fragile that they think this is an attack on them, rather than simply a theory regarding the socioeconomic impact on the accuracy of the fossil record. Honest and accurate analysis is now somehow divisive. So odd.

No one said anything about this being an attack on anyone. But hey great strawman to turn your arrogant mockery on. But the joke is on you if you think Critical Theory is "honest and accurate analysis."

[Common Sense]

I wonder if the critics of the paper have actually read it. It’s actually kind of interesting. In order for scientific findings to be accurate, they need to analyze the metrics and methods used and acknowledge past mistakes and oversights. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who can be honest, that the field of anthropology being a virtual monopoly held by a small group of countries and institutions, can and probably does have an impact on the validity of their findings. Scientists should always seek the truth. If socioeconomic factors play a role, why not acknowledge it? I really don’t understand why some people think an honest and critical analysis of anything is somehow bad, or an attack on them.

[Common Sense]

No one said anything about this being an attack on anyone. But hey great strawman to turn your arrogant mockery on. But the joke is on you if you think Critical Theory is "honest and accurate analysis."

Well, Carolina implied it…

”I'm having a really hard time with all the things I and we have all done wrong.”

Sorry, but I just don’t see why analyzing something like this, or the history of race in America, is wrong.

[Chris]

I wonder if the critics of the paper have actually read it. It’s actually kind of interesting. In order for scientific findings to be accurate, they need to analyze the metrics and methods used and acknowledge past mistakes and oversights. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who can be honest, that the field of anthropology being a virtual monopoly held by a small group of countries and institutions, can and probably does have an impact on the validity of their findings. Scientists should always seek the truth. If socioeconomic factors play a role, why not acknowledge it? I really don’t understand why some people think an honest and critical analysis of anything is somehow bad, or an attack on them.

Yea, you're Woke.

The problem with the paper is they find disparities in outcomes and then merely construct a narrative to tie it to a social justice theory.

[Common Sense]

Yea, you're Woke.

The problem with the paper is they find disparities in outcomes and then merely construct a narrative to tie it to a social justice theory.

Did you read the whole thing? Because that’s not an accurate description.

[Chris]

Well, Carolina implied it…

”I'm having a really hard time with all the things I and we have all done wrong.”

Sorry, but I just don’t see why analyzing something like this, or the history of race in America, is wrong.

Having a hard time believing some people can be so stupid as to fall for a BS theory and then falsely apply it to science.

Because the fact of disparate outcomes implies nothing at all about causes.

[Common Sense]

Having a hard time believing some people can be so stupid as to fall for a BS theory and then falsely apply it to science.

Because the fact of disparate outcomes implies nothing at all about causes.

So that’s a no? You didn’t read it.