> I actually meant far worse for our body of knowledge and for academic credibility. Particularly since the US has taken a serious anti-academic pivot in the p

> I actually meant far worse for our body of knowledge and for academic credibility. Particularly since the US has taken a serious anti-academic pivot in the past 20 years. What evidence is this claim based on? > They were students at one point certainly, but the circumstances and mentalities of every generation of students differs. To claim there's an inconsistency is to claim you know why enrollment in these disciplines might be down (assuming it is), which you don't. And that tells you nothing about the influence of these subjects outside of academia. Saying "they were students" is meaningless. I am pointing out the decline in student numbers because the claim that these disciplines are increasing in power is inconsistent with that... and you still haven't stated what fields you think are in those disciplines. > Right, the hoax highlights the poor methodology common in this field, No it doesn't, it highlights how easy it is to get bad articles into academic journals, which is also true of many other disciplines. > The results from this field have guided a lot of policy, in government, in industry, and in academia. As but one example, Google has pushed a number of initiatives to improve diversity, initiatives that are logically impossible to implement and that are legally discriminatory (and for which they are now being sued). Please show how these disciplines and diversity initiatives are causally linked. > In every case, there has been no legitimate basis, and so those distinctions were torn down. The change of ideology through history is more complex than you'd like to believe. > Except we're now reaching a point where factual distinctions are themselves being torn down, because science itself is being questioned. Here be dragons. There's no evidence of this. This is a conspiracy theory.