Researchers produce study on the possible mathematical underpinnings of the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.
Experts in the field praise the study. Editor of journal, though aware of the controversial nature of studies into intelligence and gender, offers to publish the article to encourage a robust debate on the subject.
When interest groups in academia find out, they denounce the paper. One of the authors is encouraged to remove his name from it.
Under pressure from diversity professionals, the National Science Foundation requests that the authors remove mention of their funding for the research.
The editor withdraws her support and rejects the article, citing the possibility that it could be used as political ammunition by the right.*
One of the researchers buckles under the attack and withdraws his name from the paper.
Another journal offers to publish revised article, after assessment by referee. Conditions met, publication is confirmed.
This journal is attacked in turn, and half the board threaten to resign if the paper is published. It's pulled from the journal.
* This is the same argument that religious authorities use to suppress the teaching of evolution - its scientific merits matter less than the threat it poses to social values.
Holy over-reaction. On both the WIM and Cliff Fletcher.
I can understand the concerns of WIM, but the research stands on its own. If you think this doesn't forward your cause, do research to disprove or refute the findings. Pretty straight forward process, but we do see politically oriented groups representative of only one perspective resorting to these behaviors from time-to-time.
On to Cliff, this is yet another over-reaction to the actions of one select group which he attempts to paint on all of academia. I don't get it. Academia is full of all sorts, and yes, there are plenty that would prefer to represent their limited interests over that of the whole academy. This is one of those instances, and one where the interest in question has been called out by others with the academy. So should all of academia be accused of suppression of scientific evidence, or should the very small group be pointed at as a bad actor in the larger setting? That would seem to be the more pragmatic approach, seeing as WIM doesn't even get support of their own faculty or department, based on responses to the blog and the support for the original journal article. This isn't a situation where all of academia is clamoring to support the actions of WIM. In fact, its just the opposite.
So while I'm certain their will be some false equivalency dreamed up, saying that liberals (ooh, the boogey man!) have suppressed science just like their conservative counterparts, the reality is that one very small segment of one school within the academy has taken a political action, and failed miserably. So while climate science is indeed suppressed by conservatives in politics, to peril of us all, a journal article thought to be repressive to the cause of recruiting women has some how become an equitable transgression by those filthy dirty hippies!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
If depending on the argument from ignorance fallacy is all you have, then sure, Cliff is right until someone proves him wrong, I guess. But that’s poor logic. If you’d like to use google, you’ll find a large range of evidence detailing academic suppression, from the tobacco industry, to climate change, to the events of hurricane Katrina. All large, very prominent issues over the past 20-30 years that have been subject to academic suppression.
I'm aware of exactly no academic papers on the effect of climate change, tobacco or hurricane Katrina that were suppressed by the field, nor any instance where publishing on those topics resulted in a moral outrage by other academics, threats against the authors' and editors' livelihoods, or demands to retract the paper and apologize for publishing it in the first place. The efforts you're referring to, as far as I know, were more a "baffle them with bull####" strategy of attempting to muddy the waters by creating a false lack of consensus (see the documentary "Merchants of Doubt"). Which is obviously a huge problem in itself, but an entirely different one from what's being talked about here.
Good timing - Harris and Haidt just released a podcast, which you could call a "state of the issue" on the University atmosphere generally.
Note the limitations that Haidt places on the scope of the problem: only since 2013, only involving people born after roughly 1995 ("not a millenial problem generally"), mostly confined to liberal arts colleges in the northeast and on the west coast, and not an issue where students are commuters (rather than living together on campus). The comments about prestige-seeking behaviour and the change to incentives in that area in the past handful of years is particularly on point.
That being said, I think my favourite person talking about the issue from the perspective of faculty, rather than focusing on students, is Alice Dreger.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 09-10-2018 at 03:56 PM.
For New Era^^ So your saying that all opinions within a group aren’t homogeneous? No way!
But if we agree that ‘conservatives’ trying to suppress climate science based on political beliefs is wrong, then we should also be able to agree that ‘liberals’ that suppress science on whatever they disagree with is equally distasteful.
And Pepsifree, your argument against Cliffs post seems to be that if it has happened in the past, then it is ok now. Why wouldn’t you agree that burying legitimate scientific research because it violates some current social / political taboo is wrong, even if you can find prior examples of it occurring at some point in history?
Many in the sociology field are hostile to sociobiology and the very idea that human social behaviours can derive from our biological impulses the same way the social behaviours of ants and chimpanzees do. They seem to think it's a threat to recognizing that socialization and social structures play a part as well, as though the two influences are mutually exclusive. Edward O Wilson's On Human Nature apparently sparked quite a firestorm of controversy when it was published in 1978.
But if we agree that ‘conservatives’ trying to suppress climate science based on political beliefs is wrong, then we should also be able to agree that ‘liberals’ that suppress science on whatever they disagree with is equally distasteful.
Can we agree that the suppression of climate science is a conservative practice, and that this practice is now entrenched within the geopolitical agenda of many conservative organizations who have the ability to influence the zeitgeist? Can we agree that conservatives have been establishing this systematic approach to suppressing not only climate science data, but science itself on a number of issues that could affect their ability to forward their agenda of making short term gains, both fiscally and culturally?
Next, can we agree that there is no widespread systemic suppression of science on the side of academia and liberals in general? Can we agree that that does not happen? It is kind of counter to the mission of many institutions.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
For New Era^^ So your saying that all opinions within a group aren’t homogeneous? No way!
But if we agree that ‘conservatives’ trying to suppress climate science based on political beliefs is wrong, then we should also be able to agree that ‘liberals’ that suppress science on whatever they disagree with is equally distasteful.
And Pepsifree, your argument against Cliffs post seems to be that if it has happened in the past, then it is ok now. Why wouldn’t you agree that burying legitimate scientific research because it violates some current social / political taboo is wrong, even if you can find prior examples of it occurring at some point in history?
My argument isn’t that it’s ok now, my argument is that dramatising it is a new and novel thing is not only wrong, it actually damages our path forward because we then also have to then ignore the teachings of history in how to respond to this suppression.
I mean, of course it’s wrong. It was wrong when they did it 400 years ago, it’s wrong now, and has been wrong at every instance in between.
We deal with it as we have done in the past, not by throwing our hands up, becoming nihilists, and saying “gee I can’t say anything without feeling pressure so i’ll say nothing,” it’s continuing to say it, countuining to present the research, looking for different ways forward to get what might be important messages across and not simply giving up. That’s the way forward. It’s not new or special, it’s what history has taught us.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I'm aware of exactly no academic papers on the effect of climate change, tobacco or hurricane Katrina that were suppressed by the field
Then maybe you would be served by looking into it. I don’t know what to say, you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink? Google is an inspired tool where you, if you’re unaware, can find countless information on the subjects you’re unaware of. Here’s an example from literally 4 seconds of googling and just pulling the first result:
Seriously, the idea that this is a new thing, that academic suppression is new or has never happened in any other scientific field other than those relating to identity politics, is ridiculous. It’s almost hard to dignify with a response.
Sensationalising these issues and showing ignorance to the broader issue because it doesn’t involve a narrative you’re interested in is very strange, is all. I’m not sure what someone gains by pretending academic suppression is new, or how they hope to move past it if they wilfully ignore every lesson history has taught us because they’d rather pretend it’s never happened before.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Next, can we agree that there is no widespread systemic suppression of science on the side of academia and liberals in general? Can we agree that that does not happen? It is kind of counter to the mission of many institutions.
No, we can't. The methods may be different - conservatives call science they don't like lies motivated by socialism and progressives call science they don't like dangerous and motivated by bigotry - but the effect is the same.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Then maybe you would be served by looking into it. I don’t know what to say, you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink? Google is an inspired tool where you, if you’re unaware, can find countless information on the subjects you’re unaware of.
This is just you being a complete #######, for no reason at all. Why would anyone want to talk to you when you consistently behave like this? Seriously, if you talked this way to someone in person, what reaction would you expect?
Cool. So Your example of how this sort of suppression has been going on forever is from... 2014?
You're right, it's not about identity politics, but it actually is about suppression of research that opposes (or rather, puts some brakes on) left-wing political orthodoxy, in this case relating to climate change. Basically, you've accidentally supported Cliff's point here, albeit by expanding its scope to include other ideological dogmas. I mean, hell, he literally just posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Do we really want to assume science is always motivated by ideological and social agendas? Isn't that what global warming deniers accuse the climate scientists of - using dubious research to justify a political and economic agenda? How far do we want to go down the road of suppressing science just because it could be used to support controversial ideological positions?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No, we can't. The methods may be different - conservatives call science they don't like lies motivated by socialism and progressives call science they don't like dangerous and motivated by bigotry - but the effect is the same.
No it is no the same and your premises shows your bias. We live in a politically conscious time. Universities do and need to stay aware of the possible political fallout of there research. Because if they don't it can be weaponized, which is why the alt-right loves Peterson; the can co-opt it and legitimize themselves further.
Furthermore the attacks on Academia are motived politically. Universities are stll left leaning, the right wants to be THE dominant voice and are attacking places where they are not.
Also Itse post about Contrapoints is the best post in this thread.
The Following User Says Thank You to Duruss For This Useful Post:
No it is no the same and your premises shows your bias. We live in a politically conscious time. Universities do and need to stay aware of the possible political fallout of there research. Because if they don't it can be weaponized, which is why the alt-right loves Peterson; the can co-opt it and legitimize themselves further.
Well then. This is a radical statement that no one else in this thread has made so far. You've actually openly supported the suppression of true, but politically inconvenient, research results. Your political cause is not so just and so right that it trumps free inquiry. This is essentially the argument of the religious zealot, attempting to dictate to science what it can and cannot investigate for fear that it will tread on cherished beliefs. You do not get to suppress scientific data because the data can be misused by your political opponents. It's really unfortunate that you and others think this is justifiable.
... Screw it, this is, as usual, pointless and totally depressing. Cliff, best of luck here. I do hope someone takes the time to watch - or at least start watching and see if they want to keep going - that Dreger talk up there.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 09-10-2018 at 05:17 PM.
Well then. This is a radical statement that no one else in this thread has made so far. You've actually openly supported the suppression of true, but politically inconvenient, research results. Your political cause is not so just and so right that it trumps free inquiry. This is essentially the argument of the religious zealot, attempting to dictate to science what it can and cannot investigate for fear that it will tread on cherished beliefs. You do not get to suppress scientific data because the data can be misused by your political opponents. It's really unfortunate that you and others think this is justifiable.
... Screw it, this is, as usual, pointless and totally depressing.
Your projecting, I stated what I see as obvious. It has neither my approval or disapproval. There has also been a distinct change in your posts lately, your being rather catty.
What I do think is that it is unsurprising that this occurs as it is byproduct of how university has monetized.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Duruss For This Useful Post:
Your projecting, I stated what I see as obvious. It has neither my approval or disapproval. There has also been a distinct change in your posts lately, your being rather catty.
My post is directly aimed at the content of yours. Your statement that it's obvious to you doesn't detract from my criticisms of your view, which is horribly dangerous, at all.
Also, you should stop making personal accusations of "bias" or "projection" without any real support (and, in particular, over the internet through an anonymous forum). That's not fair play. The commentary on the tone of my posts is, though, and you might be right. My frustration with these discussions is probably evident. I probably just need to not get into them anymore. I'll try.
Quote:
What I do think is that it is unsurprising that this occurs as it is byproduct of how university has monetized.
Partly, yes. That issue is a big part of what Dreger talks about. Haidt and company don't pay enough attention to it.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
This is just you being a complete #######, for no reason at all. Why would anyone want to talk to you when you consistently behave like this? Seriously, if you talked this way to someone in person, what reaction would you expect?
Cool. So Your example of how this sort of suppression has been going on forever is from... 2014?
Uh, no, my example was to illustrate that your assertion: “I’m aware of no academic suppression concerning climate change” was bogus, and takes only a basic internet search to disprove.
Regarding decorum, I just give what I receive because I’m generous like that. If you don’t like it, then careful throwing around the word “asinine” or other inflammatories, and don’t engage in catty drive-bys when others are having a conversation. Cliff and I, different as we may be, can go back and forth fairly fine without a breaking down and throwing our hands up while not making it personal. If you don’t have the heart to perform on the stage you set, don’t build it that way, and if you do, don’t act victimised when someone delivers the same decorum right back.
Again, my position isn’t that academic suppression doesn’t exist, it’s that it does exist, isn’t new, and isn’t restricted to social issues. I’m happy to provide a link that supports that fact, whether it’s from 2014 or 1984, even if it supports part of Cliff’s point, because we’re not in entire disagreement.
It’d be silly to not post a link just because it may also align with part of someone else’s argument. I’d happily post links that outright refuted part of my own arguments, if I had reason for doing so.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
No, we can't. The methods may be different - conservatives call science they don't like lies motivated by socialism and progressives call science they don't like dangerous and motivated by bigotry - but the effect is the same.
False equivalency is false. I don't know where you come up with this stuff? The instances of "progressives" calling science dangerous or bigoted is so limited that it is statistically insignificant. The instances of climate science denial, by conservatives, is so well documented and supported it has become entrenched in their ideology. And no, the effect is NOT the same. When those limited "progressive" voices attempt to silence science they are crushed by the larger scientific and academic community. Conversely, when conservatives deny science it becomes dogma and becomes a core value of their political ideology. The denial by a small group like WIM is barely a blip on the radar and has almost zero impact to society, denying a particular study a temporary publication restriction. The denial by the larger conservative political apparatus is substantial and has dire consequences, you know, like our planet becoming inhabitable for the human species. NOT the same, and one is much more dangerous.
Also, you should stop making personal accusations of "bias" or "projection" without any real support (and, in particular, over the internet through an anonymous forum). That's not fair play.
That's a difficult thing to quantify when I am using your and Cliff's post's and words, often in this thread, as my basis for my view.
I don't post because I do have some challenges articulating my thoughts as words on a screen, but this thread just got too wacky to ignore today.
The Following User Says Thank You to Duruss For This Useful Post:
For those still on the fence about whether academic suppression is a “new” thing or (as I believe) has been around for quite some time, here are some other reads:
Some of these articles illustrate specific cases, others encourage further reading, but I think my end conclusion would be that categorising academic suppression as a “new” thing, or something exclusive of one particular field or political ideology is wrong, and we of hope to maintain academic freedom, we’re best served not ignoring history, but learning from it.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
This is just you being a complete #######, for no reason at all. Why would anyone want to talk to you when you consistently behave like this? Seriously, if you talked this way to someone in person, what reaction would you expect?
You, of all people, should not be lecturing people on how to talk to others. You regularly put in little quips, call people things and what not when they say something you don't agree with. I agree Pepsi was being an bit of an arse, but your track record is far from clean in that department. Lead by example.
The Following User Says Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Perhaps things differ between professors/programs, but the first lesson in my Sociology 101 class was that all human behaviour was learned. I took two upper level sociology classes as well, and it seemed to be same.
Just to clarify I absolutely do not think that all humanities are BS.
Well we've studied it not just in different schools, but on different continents, and it shows.
But I would put it this way: the problem you're describing is not with sociology as such, but with the fact that if some professor or faculty decides to basically just ignore the science they don't like, they can actually do that and still be allowed to teach.
