4 ms·

Academic Ideologues Are Corrupting STEM. The Silent Majority Must Fight Back

42 points by _htpa 5y ago

massinstall 5y ago
Great article, and beautifully written.
jlawson 5y ago
Title appears to be inaccurate. It removed the word "liberal" which is before "majority" on the original article.
- maxharris 5y ago
  The title lengths are limited, but you're right. I wish they'd kept "liberal" in there
- cjdrake 5y ago
  I was character-limited. It was either: "The Silent Liberal Majority Must Fight", or "The Silent Majority Must Fight Back".
a9h74j 5y ago
This is a follow-up article, after one providing a historically-well-informed look based in Soviet experiences. I don't know if the following is real, but I clipped it the other day from an online comment: “Glaciers, Gender & Science, a Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research” --- “Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, & glaciers, particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1. knowledge producers 2. gendered science & knowledge 3. systems of scientific domination & 4. alternative representations of glaciers merging feminist post-colonial science studies & feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, & epistemiologies in dynamic social ecological systems, thereby leading to more just & equitable science & human / ice interactions.” To me, what is more ominous (but related) is explicit political tests even for would-be STEM professors.
- janstice 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing out the glacier article - it looks really interesting - here’s a 2016 interview with the author (a science historian who studies people who study glaciers), Mark Carey (a man) https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-glaciology-study-reflects-sudden-appearance-culture-wars https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-g...
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I wonder what's so ominous about listening to what historically marginalized groups have to say about glaciers instead of systematically censoring them on the basis of their identity.
    - a9h74j 5y ago
      Fair point. I inserted a snippet I did not have the provinence for, and I did not see the full import. Mea culpa. However, there seems to be more going on within that snippet than "We will study glacier change impacts with particular sensitivity to women's views." Some of those other things do appear pertinant to the subject of the OP at Quillette.
    - dc7yduejjrn 5y ago
      Why does the historical side matter in this context? Their work is perfectly capable of speaking for itself.
  - a9h74j 5y ago
    Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link. For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.) Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term). From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.
zvfaaq 5y ago
For another example of this, just look at what happens if you dare to state biological facts such as "humans only have two sexes" or "sex is not a spectrum" or "humans cannot change their sex" to someone on the illiberal left. As an old school leftist whose appreciation of the world is based in material reality, this burgeoning attitude of denying how things actually are is quite concerning.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  >biological fact humans have two sexes The amount of biological sexes aren’t even close to two. There’s XXY… XYY… XXX… Nor is anybody arguing about “sexes” really the argument revolves around gender rather than biological sex. There is also a line of argument that transgender people are neurologically intersex (woman’s brain in a man’s body or something), with brains and showing differences in trans populations compared to cis populations being used as an evidentiary basis for this argument. As such, treating these intersex people with gendered treatment that is at odds with the biological reality of their minds would cause them much duress. This isn’t by any means a universally accepted line of argument but it’s certainly one I’ve heard.
  - _Algernon_ 5y ago
    XXY, etc are genetic abnormalities. They aren't sexes in the same way that cancer or parkinsons aren't recognized as developmental stages.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      This comment is the equivalent to saying that people with mental health issues don't matter and don't count because they are abnormalities. Having different chromosomes changes your biochemistry from the traditional XX or XY and just because it isn't what we were normally taught to expect doesn't mean we can just write off the perspectives of those people. That's a load of shit, quite frankly
jimmyvalmer 5y ago
tldr; it's okay to teach Fischer despite his being a rank eugenist. It's like Seinfeld said regarding Cosby, you can separate the art from the artist (sadly, Seinfeld backpedalled after Colbert countered pandering to his woke audience).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

42 points by _htpa 5y ago

massinstall 5y ago

Great article, and beautifully written.

jlawson 5y ago

Title appears to be inaccurate. It removed the word "liberal" which is before "majority" on the original article.

maxharris 5y ago
The title lengths are limited, but you're right. I wish they'd kept "liberal" in there
cjdrake 5y ago
I was character-limited. It was either: "The Silent Liberal Majority Must Fight", or "The Silent Majority Must Fight Back".

a9h74j 5y ago

This is a follow-up article, after one providing a historically-well-informed look based in Soviet experiences. I don't know if the following is real, but I clipped it the other day from an online comment: “Glaciers, Gender & Science, a Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research” --- “Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, & glaciers, particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1. knowledge producers 2. gendered science & knowledge 3. systems of scientific domination & 4. alternative representations of glaciers merging feminist post-colonial science studies & feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, & epistemiologies in dynamic social ecological systems, thereby leading to more just & equitable science & human / ice interactions.” To me, what is more ominous (but related) is explicit political tests even for would-be STEM professors.

janstice 5y ago
Thanks for pointing out the glacier article - it looks really interesting - here’s a 2016 interview with the author (a science historian who studies people who study glaciers), Mark Carey (a man) https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-glaciology-study-reflects-sudden-appearance-culture-wars https://www.science.org/content/article/qa-author-feminist-g...
- klyrs 5y ago
  I wonder what's so ominous about listening to what historically marginalized groups have to say about glaciers instead of systematically censoring them on the basis of their identity.
  - a9h74j 5y ago
    Fair point. I inserted a snippet I did not have the provinence for, and I did not see the full import. Mea culpa. However, there seems to be more going on within that snippet than "We will study glacier change impacts with particular sensitivity to women's views." Some of those other things do appear pertinant to the subject of the OP at Quillette.
  - dc7yduejjrn 5y ago
    Why does the historical side matter in this context? Their work is perfectly capable of speaking for itself.
- a9h74j 5y ago
  Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link. For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.) Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term). From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.

zvfaaq 5y ago

For another example of this, just look at what happens if you dare to state biological facts such as "humans only have two sexes" or "sex is not a spectrum" or "humans cannot change their sex" to someone on the illiberal left. As an old school leftist whose appreciation of the world is based in material reality, this burgeoning attitude of denying how things actually are is quite concerning.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
faeriechangling 5y ago
>biological fact humans have two sexes The amount of biological sexes aren’t even close to two. There’s XXY… XYY… XXX… Nor is anybody arguing about “sexes” really the argument revolves around gender rather than biological sex. There is also a line of argument that transgender people are neurologically intersex (woman’s brain in a man’s body or something), with brains and showing differences in trans populations compared to cis populations being used as an evidentiary basis for this argument. As such, treating these intersex people with gendered treatment that is at odds with the biological reality of their minds would cause them much duress. This isn’t by any means a universally accepted line of argument but it’s certainly one I’ve heard.
- _Algernon_ 5y ago
  XXY, etc are genetic abnormalities. They aren't sexes in the same way that cancer or parkinsons aren't recognized as developmental stages.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    This comment is the equivalent to saying that people with mental health issues don't matter and don't count because they are abnormalities. Having different chromosomes changes your biochemistry from the traditional XX or XY and just because it isn't what we were normally taught to expect doesn't mean we can just write off the perspectives of those people. That's a load of shit, quite frankly

jimmyvalmer 5y ago

tldr; it's okay to teach Fischer despite his being a rank eugenist. It's like Seinfeld said regarding Cosby, you can separate the art from the artist (sadly, Seinfeld backpedalled after Colbert countered pandering to his woke audience).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]