3 ms·
OK, go ahead and point out where they - Heying and Weinstein - were wrong on this subject. There are sure to be some things they missed or some claims which did
by the_third_wave 4y ago
OK, go ahead and point out where they - Heying and Weinstein - were wrong on this subject. There are sure to be some things they missed or some claims which did not pan out but on the whole they were far more right than the push-fed drivel served by most official institutions, government and corporate media.
I'd say she has some sensible things to say where it concerns redefining the concept of a university although she also - in my not so humble opinion - approaches the subject from a utopian standpoint stemming from the concept of the Evergreen State College as imagined by her and (seemingly to a lesser extent) Brett Weinstein. The "new university" as she imagines it would quickly fall prey to the next iteration of critical theorists intent on fomenting revolution just like Evergreen State College was taken over.
As I see it the real problem lies with the concept of ideology - or the lack of it. The critical theory inspired "faculty yahoos" (Heying's words) who took over the faculty and spread a thick layer of "woke" over everything did so because they were - and are - driven by an ideology as surely as Scientologists or Jehovah's witnesses are driven by one, the former just leave out the concept of a supernatural being and replace it with prophets searching for some ephemeral "truth". While they do not have a supernatural being on top they do have a concept of an "adversary" like most other religions, this being the WEIRD [1] world in which they grew up. Whether driven by their image of a god or one pushed by revolutionary pamphlets, both groups have a strong drive to push their ideologies as far as they can go in as many places as they can. When universities were driven by their own ideology - usually in the form of the Christian religion [2] - they had a defence against other ideologies intent on taking over as the dominant factor but when they moved away from these they left themselves open for invasion by competing ideologies.
What then is the solution? Should universities return to their religious foundations to once again become resilient against attacks from invading ideologies? Some would loudly call for this but I don't see this as a good solution for a number of reasons. The first reason is that religion and rationality don't mix all that well while the scientific method depends on rationality to function. The second is that the Christian religion itself is vulnerable to takeover by competing ideologies and has in some cases already been taken over, viz. Liberation theology [3] which is an amalgamation of Catholicism and Marxism.
What, then, could guard institutes of learning and dissemination of knowledge from being invaded by these types of intellectual parasites without this defence wholly taking over the institutes? To me this is an open question waiting for a good answer. Until a good one is found and implemented it is probably a good idea for these institutions to take a step back and pick up some of the tenets of their own lost ideologies lest they be taken over entirely and with that, lost. Realise that this problem is mostly if not wholly confined to "the west", e.g. Chinese and Russian universities will continue on their own paths while their western counterparts get mired into the modern version of the search for how many angels can find a place to stand on a pinhead.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD
[2] e.g. Harvard (named after a Christian minister) and Yale (originally Puritan, started by clergymen) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian). Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” In the UK Oxford University was established by various religious orders. Likewise, Cambridge University was established in 1209 by Christian leaders. Saint Andrews, Scotland’s oldest university, was founded principally for the teaching and study of theology.
[3] https://www.academia.edu/38221258/Liberation_Theology_A_Critical_Analysis_pdf https://www.academia.edu/38221258/Liberation_Theology_A_Crit...
- tptacek 4y agoThese are a lot of words that don't touch the fact that Heying is one of the country's foremost vaccine skeptics, and perhaps the single foremost American advocate of prophylactic ivermectin. My point is that she's a bad scientist. I wouldn't want to touch her ideological arguments with a barge pole if I could avoid it.
- the_third_wave 4y agoHeying is not a "vaccine skeptic" [1], she is just critical of the way the vaccines against SARS2 were developed and deployed. Prophylactic Ivermectin is a subject worth a discussion on its own since it is not clear at all [2] whether this a) worked for the first strains or if it did whether the efficacy remained for following strains. While a single data point doesn't prove nor disprove its efficacy I'll give it anyway: when everyone in my family - me (56yo male, 2 doses of Moderna), my wife (51yo, 2 doses of Moderna), my daughters of 10 and 17 - got SARS2 I was the only one who took Ivermectin. I had a light fever (38°C) for a day, the next day I was free of symptoms. My wife was ill for a week with fever, she was tired for more than 3 weeks. My 17yo daughter had a fever for about 2 days but was free from symptoms after that. My 10yo daughter had a slightly raised temperature for 5 days, no other symptoms and symptom-free after those 5 days. Was it the Ivermectin which helped me to beat all the others even though a) I'm a man and as such supposedly more vulnerable and b) the oldest which is supposed to be a factor? Who knows? I don't but I do know it did not hurt me, it being dirt-cheap and nearly free of side effects. I think you're blindsided by your adherence to the official narrative on SARS2 vaccines and as such unable - or unwilling - to see her arguments for what they are. The scientific method does not require adherence to any narrative, it requires rationality and inquisitiveness and a willingness to accept unexpected results whether those prove or disprove your thesis. You are of course free to express doubts about her ideological position but those doubts do not make her a bad scientist no more than anyone in a white lab coat following the required narrative is automatically a good scientist. [1] as you probably know if you've delved into the subject, both she as well as her husband (Brett Weinstein) are vaccinated against many things most people don't have to deal with given their occupations. They just don't trust the experimental vaccines against SARS2. [2] mostly because any research around the subject was deigned to be off-limits