This is dangerous reasoning; the google memo incident shows science walks a narrow path, and there are pitfalls all around. Science is the best sword we have t

This is dangerous reasoning; the google memo incident shows science walks a narrow path, and there are pitfalls all around. Science is the best sword we have to separate truth from falsehood; to say that science is wrong and biased whenever it doesn't say what we like is to commit the exact same sin against scholarship as Damore. Damore didn't like what he was hearing from the diversity experts so he went and cherry picked the studies that supported his gut feeling. Cherry picking is still cherry picking even when you're doing it in defense of diversity. I think one of the under-discussed aspects of the whole debacle was the is-ought problem [0], i.e. the gap between statements about "what is" and statements about what "ought to be." Science works very well on "what is" questions. It can tell us that the earth is warming. It can tell us all the things that will happen as the earth warms, and all the things we could do that that would stop the earth from warming. But when it comes time to decide what temperature the earth "ought" to be, we can't ask science; we have to first decide what our goals are. If our goal is to maximize short term profit, we will get a different answer than if we want to maximize long term sustainability. In the same way, science can't tell us what the gender ratio "should" be. Its on us to decide what our priorities are. If our goal is short term profit, we will undoubtedly prefer a different ratio than if we are trying to achieve a more egalitarian society in the long term. So that is why the author's assertion "In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong." is a misrepresentation of science. Science tells us "the earth is warming", we are the ones who have to add "and that is wrong." Science tells us "there is bias", we are the ones who have to add "and that is wrong." That scientists in the past have failed to add that last bit (or even added "and that is good!") is not adequate justification for the author to simply dismiss science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem