I don't see how avoiding mentions of people you deem problematic is helpful in science writing. One could also argue that by not mentioning certain researchers you're contributing to denying their alleged wrongdoing. Surely we as readers are capable of seeing you mention someone without assuming you are endorsing all aspects of their private life. It does not garner trust as a science-communicator when you omit important contributors because you deem them problematic. How is the reader to trust your prose if you omit uncomfortable facts and people, and how are you going to convince a reader that your judgement of someones character is just and fair? Charles Darwin for example married his younger cousin. Should his contribution to our understanding of the natural world be omitted because he was incestous? Should Carl von Linneus be erased for including humans in ghis categorization of living organisms by phenotype? Why not present the relevant facts and let the readers make our own judgement?
As a lesbian myself I am interested in what and who you feel constitutes an "outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants" to avoid mentioning. That characterization of unnamed people without context can itself silence legitimate nuance. Many lesbian women such as Alison Bailey, Kathleen Stock and Keira Bell are being deemed "outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants" for maintaining that biological sex matters, especially to same-sex attracted women. Are lesbians "anti-LGBTQ meanies"?
I was thinking more examples where nuance doesn't factor into it so much. I don't think, for example, Kirk Cameron's discussion of crocoduck is worth including in any book I write. I feel completely justified in leaving him and crocoduck out of any discussion of evolution or biology, and I would assume I would garner more trust as a science communication for not including him. He is a young-earth creationist and an outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants.
Maybe you're talking about two slightly different things, both important but that can be faced differently. One is to be aware of "non-Western" knowledge (I hate the expression) and actively seek other than middle-age-white-male... This is a duty for us when doing research and writing. Another is the politics of some of the scientists and thinkers, Western or otherwise. And maybe there you can more forcefully explain when and why you're using his/her work, if it worth using it. Your situation is not the same as the Canadian Parliament, since you're not praising his/her actions, right?
Indeed, slightly different but related topics. And I guess that's the tension: does inclusion of a reference to a "problematic" person's work bring with it a tacit endorsement of them as a person? If it's qualified/explained, maybe not. But if it's just dropped in there without qualification, does it suddenly land somewhere on the spectrum of "praise"? If not praise, then at least a semi-endorsement? It could be viewed that way by some even if it's not actually an endorsement, which is a non-trivial problem. I think when writing an academic journal article this is less of an issue. But in a book where the author has the capacity to work around problematic individuals, it gets stickier.
Getting trickier these days, because tricky people appear to be showing up more frequently! Or is it that their exploits are getting harder to hide.? Let’s hope this preamble or disclaimer absolves you of all future possible guilt!
I don't see how avoiding mentions of people you deem problematic is helpful in science writing. One could also argue that by not mentioning certain researchers you're contributing to denying their alleged wrongdoing. Surely we as readers are capable of seeing you mention someone without assuming you are endorsing all aspects of their private life. It does not garner trust as a science-communicator when you omit important contributors because you deem them problematic. How is the reader to trust your prose if you omit uncomfortable facts and people, and how are you going to convince a reader that your judgement of someones character is just and fair? Charles Darwin for example married his younger cousin. Should his contribution to our understanding of the natural world be omitted because he was incestous? Should Carl von Linneus be erased for including humans in ghis categorization of living organisms by phenotype? Why not present the relevant facts and let the readers make our own judgement?
As a lesbian myself I am interested in what and who you feel constitutes an "outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants" to avoid mentioning. That characterization of unnamed people without context can itself silence legitimate nuance. Many lesbian women such as Alison Bailey, Kathleen Stock and Keira Bell are being deemed "outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants" for maintaining that biological sex matters, especially to same-sex attracted women. Are lesbians "anti-LGBTQ meanies"?
I was thinking more examples where nuance doesn't factor into it so much. I don't think, for example, Kirk Cameron's discussion of crocoduck is worth including in any book I write. I feel completely justified in leaving him and crocoduck out of any discussion of evolution or biology, and I would assume I would garner more trust as a science communication for not including him. He is a young-earth creationist and an outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants.
Maybe you're talking about two slightly different things, both important but that can be faced differently. One is to be aware of "non-Western" knowledge (I hate the expression) and actively seek other than middle-age-white-male... This is a duty for us when doing research and writing. Another is the politics of some of the scientists and thinkers, Western or otherwise. And maybe there you can more forcefully explain when and why you're using his/her work, if it worth using it. Your situation is not the same as the Canadian Parliament, since you're not praising his/her actions, right?
Indeed, slightly different but related topics. And I guess that's the tension: does inclusion of a reference to a "problematic" person's work bring with it a tacit endorsement of them as a person? If it's qualified/explained, maybe not. But if it's just dropped in there without qualification, does it suddenly land somewhere on the spectrum of "praise"? If not praise, then at least a semi-endorsement? It could be viewed that way by some even if it's not actually an endorsement, which is a non-trivial problem. I think when writing an academic journal article this is less of an issue. But in a book where the author has the capacity to work around problematic individuals, it gets stickier.
Getting trickier these days, because tricky people appear to be showing up more frequently! Or is it that their exploits are getting harder to hide.? Let’s hope this preamble or disclaimer absolves you of all future possible guilt!