Friday, September 02, 2022



Free inquiry gives way to ideology in annals of science

Last month, one of the world’s leading science journals, Nature Human Behaviour, issued a decree stating that scientific research would be suppressed at the journal if it had the potential to harm the public.

The new guidance, titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”, was announced on Twitter on August 23 by chief editor Stavroula Kousta, who issued the chilling edict: “Some argue that we should evaluate such research only on the basis of its scientific soundness and merit. I disagree.”

The guidance states: “Although the pursuit of knowledge is a fundamental public good, considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted.”

It is less than 100 years since the last Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) was issued by the Catholic Church, the greatest project in censorship the world has known.

For 400 years, the Vatican suppressed knowledge that its cardinals deemed immoral and potentially harmful to the public, including knowledge such as the heliocentric model of the solar system and John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy.

The church’s index of banned books was so extensive that it encompassed the complete works of classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the literary treasures of Homer and Virgil, indispensable works of history by Thucydides and Edward Gibbon, and foundational philosophical and scientific texts by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Pascal, Bacon, Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Spinoza, Hobbes, Erasmus, Hume, Milton and Locke. The church finally stopped issuing its index in 1948. And 74 years later, few people could have predicted the project of censoring knowledge would be taken up by scientific journals themselves.

We expect our scientific institutions to implement policies and procedures to minimise possible harms to participants who are directly involved in scientific research. And strict rules exist to protect research participants, and have existed for decades. Oversight of research is conducted by ethics committees that are attached to every university and organisation that produces peer-reviewed research.

Yet this new guidance from Nature takes the approach of harm minimisation to a new frontier – arguing potential harms to the public must be prevented also. And the gatekeepers who will decide which knowledge is harmful to the public are the journal editors themselves.

“People can be harmed indirectly,” the guidance enjoins: “research may inadvertently stigmatise individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic.”

Elsewhere in the document, Nature lists the gender identities that must be respected if a research paper wishes to have Nature’s imprimatur, including, but not limited to, “transgender, gender-queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, genderless, agender, nongender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and cisgender”.

It will not escape a young scholar reading this decree that they will have to genuflect to unscientific concepts to have a successful career as a research scientist today. Publication in a journal such as Nature opens doors for young scholars, and can put them on the pathway to tenure and job security. In reading this decree, however, a young scientist will realise that if they want a successful career in the profession, they must subordinate their science to ideology.

The historical precedents for such a development should give us pause. While the church tried to stifle the spread of knowledge after the invention of the printing press, the Soviet Union’s censorship of science in the 20th century made the church’s efforts look like child’s play.

Under Joseph Stalin, science was not published if it was considered idealistic or bourgeois, or if it contradicted historical materialism. When the understanding of genetics – based on the principles of natural selection – was determined to be “bourgeois science”, any scientist who refused to renounce genetics was dismissed from their posting and left destitute. It is estimated that more than 3000 biologists were imprisoned during Stalin’s era, and some were sentenced to death for being “enemies of the state”.

But it was not just the scientific profession that suffered from this censorship. False ideas about agriculture promoted by Trofim Lysenko (ideas that could have been corrected by an accurate understanding of genetics) are thought to have played a direct role in famines that killed tens of millions of people in the Soviet Union as well as China. The Great Chinese Famine, which occurred after China adopted Lysenkoist agricultural policy, is estimated to have killed between 15 million and 55 million people. In other words, the suppression of accurate scientific knowledge in the 20th century was responsible for more deaths than the Holocaust.

The relatively recent cultural conventions of liberal democratic societies have allowed for open inquiry and free thought to flourish. But, ever since the Enlightenment, science and reason have come under attack from ideologues of all stripes. Whether those zealots be religious or political, the battle for science and reason never ends. And now the fight must be taken up with the ideologues within scientific institutions themselves.

*************************************************

UK: A crucial victory over family court secrecy

The chilling story of how a young couple were befriended by a ‘duplicitous and manipulative’ neighbour, who through a web of lies managed to gain custody of their two-year-old son, defies belief.

While masquerading as an avuncular figure and regularly babysitting the toddler, Colin English, 62, was simultaneously making false allegations to social services that the boy’s mother was unfit to look after him.

Despite the fact he had once been charged with murder and without even consulting the child’s parents, East Sussex social services swallowed this vile deception.

On their recommendation, a family court awarded custody to Mr and Mrs English.

It would be months before the mother got her son back, after a second court hearing in which the judge was scathing in her criticism of both English and the social services.

That was six years ago. Yet it is only now, thanks to a legal battle by the Daily Mail, this troubling story can be told.

The mother had wanted to make her ordeal public in the hope lessons might be learned but she had been gagged by a court order.

Our lawyers challenged the decree on the grounds that this was a case of vital public interest. To the mother’s joy, we succeeded.

Although there have been efforts to make our notoriously secretive family courts more transparent, this appalling saga shows there’s a long way to go.

Yes, the vulnerable must be protected but reporting restrictions should never be used to cover up negligence and injustice.

With their failings exposed, East Sussex must now explain publicly what new safeguards have been put in place.

Furthermore, there is surely evidence of criminal behaviour by English yet Sussex Police have taken no action. Why not?

This paper doesn’t underestimate the complexity of family cases or the need for discretion. But wrongdoing and incompetence must be exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight.

**************************************************

Should the U.S. Overtly Pledge to Defend Taiwan?

Short answer: no. The Chinese tantrum at Pelosi’s ill-timed visit to Taiwan hides systemic Chinese weakness. Taiwan just needs to be strong enough to run a “porcupine strategy” against any possible Chinese attack. And that we can help with, without tipping the world into global conflict in the Pacific.

The recent gross overreaction of Xi Jinping, China’s autocratic communist dictator, to Nancy Pelosi’s mere visit to Taiwan has raised fears and hackles in the U.S. foreign policy establishment—with calls to overtly pledge to go to the aid of Taiwan if China attacks the island.

For decades now, to encourage Taiwan to accept being reunited with the mainland, a rising China, with increasing heft in global affairs, has tried to shut Taiwan off from the external world diplomatically by getting it removed from world forums, while still maintaining economic relations with the island. In the 1980s, as China properly concentrated on freeing up its economy to turbocharge growth, Deng Xiaoping, then-leader of China, ran the more patient policy of reunion with Taiwan—“one country, two systems”—which allowed Taiwan autonomy with the objective of eventually giving the island economic incentives to reunite with the mainland.

“One country, two systems” is still the official policy of China, but as China’s economy has grown rapidly, the policy, under Xi Jinping, has turned more assertive toward Taiwan, with more threats of reunification by force, culminating in its recent overwrought military exercises surrounding Taiwan in response to Speaker Pelosi’s visit.

Yet such a Chinese tantrum hides Chinese weakness. Xi has reversed China’s course from Deng’s somewhat more enlightened era by significantly tightening the communist party’s control over the mainland’s economy and politics. Such draconian interventions recently have been demonstrated by Xi’s lock down of major Chinese cities because of COVID. However, these measures likely will not be the only thing dragging the Chinese economy in the future. Xi is also tightening the party’s control of Chinese business; China has state-owned, state favored, and party monitored corporations. In the case of the latter, Xi has put communist party hacks on the boards of purely private companies to see that they do not stray from the interests of the state. Such heavy state intrusion may make recent Japanese economic stagnation look mild, especially when such interventionist policies are combined with the high debt of China’s creaking state-owned companies to its state-owned banks.

That the Chinese economy is struggling then makes Xi weak politically just ahead of China’s party congress in which he tries to get an unprecedented third term as president. Thus, the massive exercises surrounding Taiwan, with missile firings near Japan and one over the island, in response to Pelosi’s visit is in part to show strength externally to offset weakness at home prior to the party congress.

Although a Pelosi more astute in foreign affairs (that is not her primary job) probably should have realized that Xi’s sensitivities would be at their peak and chosen another time to show her support for Taiwan, China should not be allowed to dictate who visits the island.

However, does that mean that the United States should boldly state that if China attacks Taiwan, the United States will come to its defense? The current deliberate policy ambiguity of what the American response would be in that event had the purpose of not encouraging Taiwan to recklessly declare its independence, thus triggering an apoplectic Chinese response. Yet on several occasions, President Joe Biden has gone off script and pledged or implied a US defense of Taiwan, with aides rushing to walk that back by saying that U.S. policy toward Taiwan had not changed.

In fact, the United States should be headed in the opposite direction: helping Taiwan to become strong enough to run a “porcupine strategy” against any possible Chinese attack. Taiwan would not need to be able to defeat a much larger Chinese military but merely to deter it from attacking by being able to inflict unacceptable damage to it. Even the policy of U.S. ambiguity has encouraged Taiwan over the years to buy too many sexy, high-tech weapons, such as fighter aircraft, at the expense of the glue that holds militaries together and makes them effective fighting forces. That glue would be better mobilization of Taiwanese society for defense and improvements in for example, military training, logistics, electronic warfare, cyber defense, and command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I). In addition, Taiwan needs to be able to threaten vulnerable Chinese surface warships with more investment in mine warfare, anti-ship missiles, fast patrol ships, and diesel submarines.

Finally, instead of U.S. hysteria over a possible Chinese attack, Americans should realize that the Chinese military may have made the same mistake as the Russian and Taiwanese militaries by developing or buying high tech systems while neglecting more important “glue” items. After the Russian debacle in Ukraine, if Xi has any sense, he should be fearful that the formidable-looking Chinese military also could be a Potemkin village when the shooting starts—especially if it tried to conduct an amphibious assault, which is one of the most difficult military operations to master.

Thus, the United States should not be hysterical about the Chinese threat to Taiwan and rush to pledge to defend the island. Instead, U.S. policy should concentrate on helping a military reform-minded Taiwanese leader, Tsai Ing-wen, to convince a stodgy Taiwanese military that it should prepare to actually fight a war instead of being mesmerized by high-tech toys. Ukraine’s success against Russia should be an inspiration.

***************************************************

Boxing Legend Mike Tyson Reveals He's Gone from 'All-Out Liberal' to 'A Little Conservative' Because of 'Common Sense'

In a recent interview, boxing legend Mike Tyson explained why he has gradually moved to the right with his political views.

During the interview with conservative outlet Newsmax, Tyson initially expressed hesitations about discussing his political views. “Listen if I start talking politics, my friends are not going to like me,” Tyson said. “Hey, let’s just not do that, okay? Let’s just not do that. “My family gets mad, my friends get mad when we talk politics.”

Yet after a bit of goading from host Greta Van Susteren, Tyson decided to open up just a bit about his views. “Now listen, when I was younger, I was all-out liberal,” Tyson said. “But as I get older and I look at my children and I see what’s out in the world, I get a little conservative.”

Perhaps even more surprising than Tyson’s declaration about becoming more conservative was his explanation for doing so.

“It’s common sense, looking at the world at the stage it’s in right now,” Tyson said. “You want safety.”

Van Susteren mentioned Tyson had moved to Florida, which is home to two of the most notable conservatives — Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump. Tyson stopped short of giving his opinion on either of those politicians.

“Hey listen, I can’t name…I can’t talk about no politicians,” Tyson said. “It’s just last time I put my hat in the arena and gave my opinion, wow, did they give me a beating.”

While Van Susteren suggested not many people could “give Mike Tyson a beating,” he said the press was a powerful entity.

“I’m gonna stay away from politics and religion,” Tyson said. “They stole my freedom of speech.”

In September 2020, Tyson announced he would vote for the first time ever in the 2020 presidential election.

“This election will be my 1st time voting,” Tyson wrote in a tweet. “I never thought I could because of my felony record. I’m proud to finally vote. Go to usa.gov/register-to-vote to register.”

Tyson is a convicted felon, but Nevada passed a law in 2019 allowing felons to vote after completing their prison sentences, The Hill reported. Tyson lived in Nevada at the time of the election, but he has since moved to Florida.

The boxing legend has not publicly shared what candidates he supported, but this new interview continues a trend of once-liberal celebrities moving to the political right.

********************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: