4 ms·

Could you explain to me the logic linking racism as scientifically unsound today and the conclusion that gender studies will be considered scientifically unsoun

Could you explain to me the logic linking racism as scientifically unsound today and the conclusion that gender studies will be considered scientifically unsound later on?

YinglingLight 6y ago
Because feels and equality are on track for devouring all objective thought.
bluetomcat 6y ago
Cultural, psychological and perceptual changes in the wider population through the centuries and decades. The same scientific theory, put in 2 different cultural setups has a different chance of attracting its proponents and opponents. In one cultural setting the arguments sound right and do not offend anyone, then the corresponding theories become widely accepted. In another, the arguments sound outlandish and attract much more opponents who come up with equally reasonable arguments.
- geofft 6y ago
  Why "gender studies" in particular though? Why not "global warming," as per your own example? Once our cultural setting stops believing that temperatures are rising, won't they stop rising? Or why not "antiracism"? It's trendy to not believe that certain races are inherently superior - doesn't that just mean that all science saying as much is influenced by its cultural context and therefore just as unreliable as the scientific racism of the past? (Or is it possible that the endeavor of science is actually a slow and flawed but nonetheless unrelenting movement towards objective truth?)
  - notgendercrit 6y ago
    Why gender studies? Because the mainstream view from Critical Gender Theory is that sex, gender expression, gender identity, and sexuality are independently variable and uncorrelated and this claim is contradicted by nearly all scientific literature, analysis, observation, and data, but Critical Gender Theory is not a scientific endeavor so objections on the grounds of observations and measurements are rejected by its believers out of hand.
  - whynotwhynot 6y ago
    bluetomcat's statement is in the realm of Relativistic Epistemology. In general, epistemology is about the root of human knowledge, and why some statement of knowledge represents a justified belief, but those roots never terminate because as Feynman said the Why question never stops recurring, as we dig deeper. In other words, there is no objective truth or any thing for that matter (no pun intended) apart from what we observe (the idea of "primacy of consciousness over matter" per E. Schrödinger et al, a neurophenomenologist view of reality) which means that our justified beliefs depend on how we observe and what we can and cannot conceive of given our finite mental model. I don't think epistemic relativism is the way to go about life as it basically puts a barrier to further inquiry and pursuit of a truth that we feel is there, and it's the act of digging that allows us to progress, and not the transient truths we derive along the way, as we dig deeper. It's almost as if the truth is a magnet with infinite power and infinite distance that keeps our consciousness in motion or that it sits behind the barrier between being and not being, life and death, etc. In the wise words of Manuel, I know nothing. Also, see Bohm's final paper on Hidden Variables and the Implicate Order, the most sane of all metaphysical thoughts that I've come across.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Considering the topic of the article, it's interesting that this comment was downvoted to [dead]. Humans seem to have a strong dislike for the general idea that there are limits to our knowledge of reality, and it seems to me that the magnitude of that dislike increases as a function of the intelligence of the individual (the smarter one is, the more disgust experienced during discussion of the unknown/unknowable).
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
        We all know absolutely there are limits - quick tell me the first words ever uttered by any human being! We can't for it has been lost to entropy, whole converted into the same end state regardless of possible outcomes. It isn't even "find what word was written on this paper before it was immersed in ink and smoother" but "find out what word was written on the paper after it was burnt and the carbon used through a cycle of bacteria, plant, animal, and minerals for a few millenia. The rhetoric is particularly galling because it is self-reinforcing willful ignorance - refusing to learn and then saying "We cannot possibly know!" instead of trying to stretch our limits.
  - lehi 6y ago
    > Why "gender studies" in particular though? Why not "global warming," as per your own example? If you reread the post, you'll note that it is actually also attacking "20th century" global warming science by analogizing it to "19th century" racism. This thread was completely derailed by the written version of this: https://youtu.be/b0e-omnsukM?t=82 https://youtu.be/b0e-omnsukM?t=82
    - geofft 6y ago
      I wouldn't say this thread derailed, it was never on a reasonable set of tracks to begin with.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Why is gender studies unique in this category? It looks to be so broad as to apply to anything- memes, capitalism, gig economy, smartphones, etc.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Cultural, psychological and perceptual changes in the wider population through the centuries and decades. The same scientific theory, put in 2 different cultural setups has a different chance of attracting its proponents and opponents. Science doesn't (or at least shouldn't) be a popularity contest as to how many proponents and opponents it attracts. The problem you're identifying is that dominant philosophies and ways of viewing the world change with time, but this is no more true for 'gender studies' as it is for any other field (of science, technology, or anything else) in which the philosophical foundation upon which it is built is so heavily involved in the results. I think a good analogy here might be interpretations of quantum mechanics, which similar to the philosophy of essentialism (for instance) can gain or lose popularity. Nevertheless, the discussion then becomes a matter of which philosophical underpinning makes the most sense or fits the empirical data. The fact this discussion is occurring does not make a whole field of study 'implausible' as a parent comment said; on the contrary, it makes it richer. It's fine for opponents and proponents to have equally reasonable arguments, but it's unclear as to how this makes a particular science untenable or equivalent to the old scientific racism, phlogiston, or phrenology.

Could you explain to me the logic linking racism as scientifically unsound today and the conclusion that gender studies will be considered scientifically unsound later on?

YinglingLight 6y ago

Because feels and equality are on track for devouring all objective thought.

bluetomcat 6y ago

Cultural, psychological and perceptual changes in the wider population through the centuries and decades. The same scientific theory, put in 2 different cultural setups has a different chance of attracting its proponents and opponents. In one cultural setting the arguments sound right and do not offend anyone, then the corresponding theories become widely accepted. In another, the arguments sound outlandish and attract much more opponents who come up with equally reasonable arguments.

geofft 6y ago
Why "gender studies" in particular though? Why not "global warming," as per your own example? Once our cultural setting stops believing that temperatures are rising, won't they stop rising? Or why not "antiracism"? It's trendy to not believe that certain races are inherently superior - doesn't that just mean that all science saying as much is influenced by its cultural context and therefore just as unreliable as the scientific racism of the past? (Or is it possible that the endeavor of science is actually a slow and flawed but nonetheless unrelenting movement towards objective truth?)
- notgendercrit 6y ago
  Why gender studies? Because the mainstream view from Critical Gender Theory is that sex, gender expression, gender identity, and sexuality are independently variable and uncorrelated and this claim is contradicted by nearly all scientific literature, analysis, observation, and data, but Critical Gender Theory is not a scientific endeavor so objections on the grounds of observations and measurements are rejected by its believers out of hand.
- whynotwhynot 6y ago
  bluetomcat's statement is in the realm of Relativistic Epistemology. In general, epistemology is about the root of human knowledge, and why some statement of knowledge represents a justified belief, but those roots never terminate because as Feynman said the Why question never stops recurring, as we dig deeper. In other words, there is no objective truth or any thing for that matter (no pun intended) apart from what we observe (the idea of "primacy of consciousness over matter" per E. Schrödinger et al, a neurophenomenologist view of reality) which means that our justified beliefs depend on how we observe and what we can and cannot conceive of given our finite mental model. I don't think epistemic relativism is the way to go about life as it basically puts a barrier to further inquiry and pursuit of a truth that we feel is there, and it's the act of digging that allows us to progress, and not the transient truths we derive along the way, as we dig deeper. It's almost as if the truth is a magnet with infinite power and infinite distance that keeps our consciousness in motion or that it sits behind the barrier between being and not being, life and death, etc. In the wise words of Manuel, I know nothing. Also, see Bohm's final paper on Hidden Variables and the Implicate Order, the most sane of all metaphysical thoughts that I've come across.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Considering the topic of the article, it's interesting that this comment was downvoted to [dead]. Humans seem to have a strong dislike for the general idea that there are limits to our knowledge of reality, and it seems to me that the magnitude of that dislike increases as a function of the intelligence of the individual (the smarter one is, the more disgust experienced during discussion of the unknown/unknowable).
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      We all know absolutely there are limits - quick tell me the first words ever uttered by any human being! We can't for it has been lost to entropy, whole converted into the same end state regardless of possible outcomes. It isn't even "find what word was written on this paper before it was immersed in ink and smoother" but "find out what word was written on the paper after it was burnt and the carbon used through a cycle of bacteria, plant, animal, and minerals for a few millenia. The rhetoric is particularly galling because it is self-reinforcing willful ignorance - refusing to learn and then saying "We cannot possibly know!" instead of trying to stretch our limits.
- lehi 6y ago
  > Why "gender studies" in particular though? Why not "global warming," as per your own example? If you reread the post, you'll note that it is actually also attacking "20th century" global warming science by analogizing it to "19th century" racism. This thread was completely derailed by the written version of this: https://youtu.be/b0e-omnsukM?t=82 https://youtu.be/b0e-omnsukM?t=82
  - geofft 6y ago
    I wouldn't say this thread derailed, it was never on a reasonable set of tracks to begin with.
TeaDrunk 6y ago
Why is gender studies unique in this category? It looks to be so broad as to apply to anything- memes, capitalism, gig economy, smartphones, etc.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>Cultural, psychological and perceptual changes in the wider population through the centuries and decades. The same scientific theory, put in 2 different cultural setups has a different chance of attracting its proponents and opponents. Science doesn't (or at least shouldn't) be a popularity contest as to how many proponents and opponents it attracts. The problem you're identifying is that dominant philosophies and ways of viewing the world change with time, but this is no more true for 'gender studies' as it is for any other field (of science, technology, or anything else) in which the philosophical foundation upon which it is built is so heavily involved in the results. I think a good analogy here might be interpretations of quantum mechanics, which similar to the philosophy of essentialism (for instance) can gain or lose popularity. Nevertheless, the discussion then becomes a matter of which philosophical underpinning makes the most sense or fits the empirical data. The fact this discussion is occurring does not make a whole field of study 'implausible' as a parent comment said; on the contrary, it makes it richer. It's fine for opponents and proponents to have equally reasonable arguments, but it's unclear as to how this makes a particular science untenable or equivalent to the old scientific racism, phlogiston, or phrenology.