About the “M” Word: “Merit”

Pamela Paul writes in the NYT:

Is a gay Republican Latino more capable of conducting a physics experiment than a white progressive heterosexual woman? Would they come to different conclusions based on the same data because of their different backgrounds?

For most people, the suggestion isn’t just ludicrous; it’s offensive.

Yet this belief — that science is somehow subjective and should be practiced and judged accordingly — has recently taken hold in academic, governmental and medical settings. A paper published last week, “In Defense of Merit in Science,” documents the disquieting ways in which research is increasingly informed by a politicized agenda, one that often characterizes science as fundamentally racist and in need of “decolonizing.” The authors argue that science should instead be independent, evidence-based and focused on advancing knowledge.

This sounds entirely reasonable.

Yet the paper was rejected by several prominent mainstream journals, including The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Another publication that passed on the paper, the authors report, described some of its conclusions as “downright hurtful.” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences took issue with the word “merit” in the title, writing that “the problem is that this concept of merit, as the authors surely know, has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow as currently implemented.”

Instead, the paper has been published in a new journal called — you can’t make this up — The Journal of Controversial Ideas.

Here is the abstract to the excellent article to which Paul was referring, co-authored by 29 scientists, "In Defense of Merit in Science":

Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with non-scientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, human-centered approach to address existing social inequalities.

Continue ReadingAbout the “M” Word: “Merit”

About Countries that Irreversibly Lose Their Way

I increasingly think of Chesterson's Fence:

Chesterton's Fence is a principle that says change should not be made until the reasoning behind the current state of affairs is understood. It says the rash move, upon coming across a fence, would be to tear it down without understanding why it was put up.

Peter McCullough, M.D. was censored during COVID and he has since been proven correct on many of his positions. Yet he didn't become bitter (at least that I could see in public). Rather, he keep trying to communicate where we, as a society, have lost our way. McCullough keeps trying to shed light on the problems he detects, but I detect an ominous undertone in his writings, a sense that we are sustaining too much damage as a society and that we might no longer have the tools, as a society, to repair the damage. I increasingly detect that same feelings in myself. In a recent article, McCullough writes:

Once the belief in a country and institution has been lost, it is very difficult to rejuvenate it. This is the principle reason why most conservative commentators often come off as sounding staid and uninspiring to the young. It’s as though the spirit has departed from the body that no amount of edifying rhetoric can reanimate. As Hegel pointed out in the preface to his Elements of the Philosophy of Law:
Philosophy always arrives too late to teach the world how it should be. As the thought of the world, philosophy appears only in the period after reality has been achieved and has completed its formative process. This lesson, also taught by history, is that only in the late stage of reality does the ideal appear in opposition to this reality, grasping it in the form of an intellectual construct.

When philosophy paints its gray in gray, then a form of life has grown old, and cannot be rejuvenated, but only recognized; the Owl of Minerva takes flight only as the dusk begins to fall.

That feeling that we might have crossed the event horizon has increasingly been expressed by people who inspire me, including (now deceased) George Carlin and Jonathan Haidt.

Excerpt from The Australian --

"'I am now very pessimistic,' Haidt said. 'I think there is a very good chance American democracy will fail, that in the next 30 years we will have a catastrophic failure of our democracy.'"

We might have fucked things up too much to ever fix them. George Carlin gets the last word here.:

Continue ReadingAbout Countries that Irreversibly Lose Their Way

The Male Brain versus Female Brain Argument of Transgender Activists

Some Trangender Activists (TRAs) claim that it makes sense to claim that some people are "born in the wrong body" because, e.g., some girls have "male" brains. Christina Buttons explains her disagreement in an article titled "Debunked: The Transgender 'Brain Sex' Argument."

The "brain sex" argument is based on the idea that there are differences in brain structure and function between males and females that are influenced by hormones and genetic factors. Advocates of this argument argue that these differences can also be seen in the brains of transgender individuals and that these differences may contribute to the development of a “gender identity” that is different from their natal sex.

Progressive media outlets have glommed onto this narrative and published dozens of articles asserting that “transgender people are born that way” and “science proves trans people aren’t making it up.” But also, mainstream media like CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, the Telegraph and scientific sources like Nature and Scientific American have repeated this misinformation.

Here’s why it's wrong The majority of the studies on the “transgender brain” have a fatal flaw: they didn’t control for confounding variables like cross-sex hormone use and, most importantly, sexual orientation. When a study doesn't control for confounding variables, it means that the researchers did not take into account other factors that could have affected the results of the study, which make it difficult or impossible to determine whether the relationship between the two variables being studied is truly causal or a byproduct of other unrelated factors.

Buttons sets forth several specific reasons, including this one:

If “gender identity” were solely biologically ingrained, it would conflict with the fact that gender dysphoria has been observed to resolve spontaneously or through psychotherapy at various ages. As we know from the growing population of detransitioners and a large body of research on desistance in children, transgender identities are not necessarily fixed. Currently, there is no brain, blood, or other objective test that distinguishes a trans-identified from a non-trans identified person.

Continue ReadingThe Male Brain versus Female Brain Argument of Transgender Activists

The Transgender Intersex Gambit: “But Intersex People Exist!”

There are only two biological sexes because there are only two types of gametes. Yes, some people are difficult to categorize by simply looking at their bodies, but if they produce a gamete (a cell capable of combining with another cell to produce a human being), it will be either an egg or a sperm, not a spegg nor any other functional option. See this short video produced by the Paradox Institute.

Almost inevitably, upon taking this position, you will hear people who have inhaled gender ideology say the "But intersex people exist." Intersex conditions exist, but they are rare (2/10,000), much rarer than the (approximately 1.4/100) of 13-17 year old teenagers now claiming to be transgender. Consider the following chart, which illustrates the number of intersex people compared to the numbers of people whose sex is obvious by simply looking:

How does the Intersex Gambit unfold? You will be challenged with the following, which I've heard in person several times from people formally educated enough to know better than to screw up something everyone learned in high school biology. They will say something like this: "Sex is not binary because intersex people exist and this demonstrates that biological sex is a spectrum." Biologist Colin Wright, author of "Understanding the Sex Binary," elaborates. Gender ideologists advises:

If no single line can be drawn, then anywhere someone chooses to draw one is totally arbitrary and subjective. If it’s totally arbitrary and subjective, then that means the categories male and female are also arbitrary and subjective “social constructs” with no firm root in biological reality. If that’s the case, why are we categorizing people in law according to these arbitrary labels instead of letting people simply label themselves? To do otherwise is to oppress people based on a biological falsehood.

Wright laments that this argument is made with "stunning success" and that it has even been embraced by "parts of the scientific establishment and the medical profession." Those using this argument include historian of science Alice Dreger.

In her book, Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex, Dreger refers to intersex individuals as “hermaphrodites,” and says: “Hermaphroditism causes a great deal of confusion, more than one might at first appreciate, because—as we will see again and again—the discovery of a ‘hermaphroditic’ body raises doubts not just about the particular body in question, but about all bodies. The questioned body forces us to ask what exactly it is—if anything—that makes the rest of us unquestionable.”

Continue ReadingThe Transgender Intersex Gambit: “But Intersex People Exist!”