How ‘social justice’ is corrupting science
Nature Human Behavior, one of the most prestigious journals for social-science research, recently published an editorial, “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans,” that generated tremendous pushback among academics and intellectuals concerned about the spread of social-justice ideology into science.
Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for one, said the journal was “no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed.”
In short, the editorial took the position that scientific truth should defer to politics. The journal now considers it appropriate to suppress research that “undermines — or could reasonably be perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities” of people or groups, as well as “text or images that disparage a person or group on the basis of socially constructed human groupings.”
Researchers are urged to “consider the potential implications of research on human groups defined on the basis of social characteristics” and “to contextualize their findings to minimize as much as possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups in the public sphere.” Anything that could be perceived as disparaging is now fair game for rejection or retraction.
The implications for scientific inquiry and truth-seeking are clear. As the journalist, Jesse Singal observed, an empirically flawless study could be retracted under the guise of social justice: “What’s most alarming is that unless I’m missing something, research that is perfectly valid and well-executed could run afoul of these guidelines.”
But such behavior already occurs. Sometimes, studies that offend social-justice orthodoxy are assigned a “flaw” of some kind — usually, one that would be treated as minor had the results been different — and rejected on that pretextual basis.
The psychologist Lee Jussim has coined the term rigorus mortis selectivus to describe the widespread practice among social scientists to denounce research one dislikes using criteria that are ostensibly scientific but never applied to politically congenial research.
Other times, studies that manage to penetrate the literature are seized upon by observers who scrutinize every aspect of the research using unreasonable criteria. Because no study is perfect, it is always possible to find some limitations to justify a cancellation campaign. Consider two recent examples:
One 2020 study suggested that junior female scientists benefit from collaborating with male — as compared with female — mentors. The publication of this article in Nature Communications (another journal in the prestigious Nature franchise) brought a social-media firestorm and angry demands for retraction. Under growing pressure, the authors caved and “agreed” to retract the article on methodological grounds.
As psychologist Chris Ferguson noted, the issues discussed in the retraction note were limitations “typically handled in a comment and response format, where critics of the article publish their critiques and the authors can respond.” The authors of the mentoring study had published an earlier study in the same journal showing evidence that “ethnic diversity resulted in an impact gain” for scientific articles. This un-retracted study used a similar methodological approach to the retracted one, but nobody objected.
A 2019 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found no evidence of anti-black bias in police shootings. Initially, the PNAS editors were unwilling to entertain calls for a retraction or even a correction. But after a critique in Science, they relented and published a reply-and-response debate.
The problem had to do with a poorly worded “significance statement” — a public-facing research summary appearing outside the body of the article itself — claiming that “White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” Following additional scrutiny, including a WashingtonPost op-ed, PNAS published a correction in which the authors admitted to misleading language in one part of the significance statement but stood by their research findings.
But in the feverish summer of 2020, and following extensive citations by CityJournal’s Heather Mac Donald, the paper became dangerous and had to be eradicated. More than 800 academic luminaries, including Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychologist and wife of the relevant PNAS editor, signed a petition attacking the paper, causing the authors to agree to retract the paper that they had vigorously defended.
The PNAS editors admitted that their concerns were political: “The problem that exists now, however, is outside the realm of science. It has to do with the misinterpretation and partisan political use of a scientific article after its publication.”
Why was the wording of the significance statement such a big deal? The authors themselves had already acknowledged that the summary statement overhyped the results. If this is sufficient to retract a paper, then the wider body of social science research is in danger.
Consider a recent sociological study linking dog walking to neighborhood rates of violent crime. Published in a top journal in the field, the study is entirely correlational and does not provide causal evidence. Yet this did not stop the press release from declaring that dog walking helped reduce street crimes.
In the words of a scientist and commentator, the Nature Human Behavior editorial codifies policies “that most social science journals already have.” In his 2014 book “The Sacred Project of American Sociology,” Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith laments the discipline’s unwillingness to come clean with the reality that pursuing specific kinds of social-justice goals is its central mission. As regrettable as the new editorial guidelines of Nature Human Behavior may be, at least they express honestly how contemporary social science is actually practiced.
Indeed, scientific journals cannot afford to remain neutral — but they need to take a strong stand for the pursuit of truth, not for any political cause. Like democracy, the scientific inquiry does not happen by default; it requires unwavering commitment among its participants to play by the rules. It is not acceptable to retract or suppress a methodologically sound study simply because you don’t like the results.
https://nypost.com/2022/09/16/how-social-justice-is-corrupting-science/
*****************************************Liz Truss is something not seen for 30 years: a Conservative Prime Minister who is a conservative
Politics is necessarily and rightly in the sidings just now, awaiting a suitable time following the late Queen’s funeral when it will re-emerge, get back on track and begin the long run-up to the next general election.
Appropriately enough, that long campaign will kick off in a frenetic way, with a mini budget on Friday, September 23, followed immediately by Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool and the Conservatives’ gathering the following week. It’s almost as if the political melodrama of the summer, culminating in Boris Johnson’s removal from office, then followed by the Queen’s death, has not only cleansed the political pallet of the electorate but has reset the battlefield itself. On one side at least.
Barely a week ago, Britain had a female head of state and a male prime minister. In two short days that was reversed. This feels like a new page, a pivotal moment in our political story. The question is whether the two main parties can rise to the challenge of presenting visions fresh enough to meet the country’s new expectations. More of the same just won’t cut it.
Much to her opponents’ uneasiness, Liz Truss has enjoyed a better start than expected, despite her relaunch of the government being somewhat knocked off course by events of the last week. At least for now, she seems to have brought a clear philosophy back to government, a philosophy that, however opposed it might be in some quarters, is at least recognisable. It differs from the politics of the previous regime in that it is distinctly Conservative: small state, low tax, less nanny statism.
We’ll see how it goes in the medium and longer term. You have to admire the chutzpah of a new chancellor floating the idea of scrapping the EU-wide cap on bankers’ bonuses in order to attract more financial talent to the city of London. As one political reporter commented, it’s as if Truss is embracing anti-populism. Yet, setting aside the risk of critical headlines, the motivation and long-termism embraced by Kwasi Kwarteng is at least clear and sound. In a post-Brexit world, there is much to be gained in making London the world’s most attractive capital in which to conduct financial business.
As for the so-called war on obesity, the PM will enjoy no shortage of adulation from many in her party for sticking up for the rights of people to make their own choices about what lifestyle they choose to pursue and what they choose to eat. There’s that word again: “choose”. We’ll be hearing more of that in the months ahead.
Personally, I have no objection to having calorie counts on restaurant menus, provided I’m still allowed to order whatever I want. But there may be some political gains ahead for a party that maintains the truth that we are each of us responsible for our own diet and our own size; much as I’d like to blame the government (the Scottish one, preferably) for my own weight, I must accept that no one forces me to eat pizza or Mars Bars; those are my choices, made by an adult with the full knowledge of the consequences. To assume that other, mostly poorer citizens have no such agency strikes me as unforgivably patronising.
And what is the Labour Party’s response to all of this? More to the point, must we limit our expectations to no more than that – a response?
Keir Starmer, according to the polls, still looks on course to be headed to Number 10; no other Labour leader since Tony Blair has enjoyed such a long and consistent poll lead. That in itself is an impressive achievement, and the fact that some on his party’s Left are agitating for his removal speaks more to their determination never to be reconciled to an electable Labour Party than anything else.
What worries Labour strategists is that the arrival of Liz Truss in Number 10 has still to filter through to the electorate. After an internal contest in which she was patronised and ridiculed by both her own party and the opposition, she had much work to do to prove that she is a substantial politician with a unique vision for government. Our national mourning has served to delay, if not neuter completely, that fresh start for the government.
But in the next week or two, as politics returns to normal (or our best guess at what “normal” looks like) we will be hearing much more from the prime minister and her ministers and will be able to flesh out what her vision actually is. The important thing to bear in mind is that, whether we agree with it or not, Truss does have a vision. She is an ideologue, which comes with advantages as well as disadvantages.
It may not be enough for Labour simply to play the same old tune on its one-note guitar, that the Tories only care about the rich, that everything they say and do must be opposed for opposition’s sake. Oh, and let’s have a windfall tax on the energy companies.
The economy, of course, may be the government’s downfall, with or without the help of the Labour Party, although the latter will be the chief beneficiary of such a circumstance. But oppositions have come to grief more than once by waiting for recessions and inflation to do the job they’re meant to do. For example, if the government successfully tackles the problem of the costly link between electricity prices and global gas prices, Labour, which has said little on the issue, will find that no one wants to hear from them anyway.
The bottom line is that Labour needs now to start forming a platform for government, not just for opposition. And, like Truss, Starmer needs to develop a philosophy, an ideology that says much more than “We will not be the Conservatives”. For now, that seems to be all he has. And poll lead or not, it just isn’t enough.
************************************************
New Disease Erases Democrats’ Memories of Their Post-2016 Attack on Democracy
Strategic amnesia is a new syndrome that lets Democrats forget their being guilty of the same behavior for which they demonize Republicans—especially when the GOP is innocent as charged.
Strategic amnesia is, essentially, what happens as psychological projection ripens over time.
Strategic-Amnesiac-in-Chief Joe Biden embodied this neurosis during the Snarl Heard ’Round the World—his corrosive, divisive Sept. 1 speech from Philadelphia’s Independence Hall.
Biden vilified “MAGA Republicans”—that is, President Donald Trump’s 74 million voters. “They refuse to accept the results of a free election,” Biden shouted, in remarks translated here from the original German. “They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth, but in the shadow of lies.”
Biden shook his fists at the MAGA Republicans and added that “they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights … .”
Just as it has addled his fellow leftists, Biden’s strategic amnesia befogged his memories of how Democrats handled Trump’s 2016 triumph over Hillary Clinton.
To recollect the anger, chaos, lies, and violence that Democrats unleashed after Nov. 8, 2016, Biden and his Kameraden should consult “Rigged.” Mollie Hemingway’s first-rate chronicle of the 2020 election recaps what happened when Clinton blew an election that she supposedly had locked up.
The Democrat Non-Acceptance Caucus denounced Trump as a faux president.
“I know he’s an illegitimate president,” Clinton declared.
Former President Jimmy Carter told NPR: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.”
“The Russians participated in helping this man get elected,” said the since-deceased Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.
Lewis boycotted Trump’s swearing-in ceremony, as did at least 66 other House Democrats. They collectively spat on the peaceful transfer of power, a hallowed tradition of U.S. democracy.
Next, the Democrat chaos campaign targeted the Electoral College. Martin Sheen, Noah Wyle, and other actors starred in ads for Americans Take Action. They urged Republican Electoral College members to ignore their voters’ will and, instead, dump Trump.
Sharon Geise, Robert Graham, Ash Khare, and Rex Teter were among Trump’s electors whom Clinton’s supporters bombarded with thousands of abusive phone calls, emails, and even death threats. Michigan elector Michael Banerian told CNN: “I’ve had people talk about putting a bullet in the back of my mouth.”
During January 2017’s election-certification ceremony, seven House Democrats challenged Trump’s electors from 10 states, including Alabama and Wyoming, which he carried by 28.3 and 47.6 percentage points, respectively. The Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 enabled these Democrats to object, just as those documents empowered Republicans to oppose pro-Biden electors on Jan. 6, 2021.
After Clinton lost, her supporters clogged streets from coast to coast. Some bawled. More carried placards that read, “We don’t accept the president-elect.”
Others weren’t saying, “Give peace a chance.”
“In Oakland, rioters set trash cans, cars, and a building on fire,” Hemingway recalled. “They smashed store windows, hurt police, and blocked a freeway.”
That Nov. 9, a Chicago mob attacked David Wilcox, yelled, “You voted Trump!” at him, carjacked his Pontiac Bonneville, and then dragged him along its side.
Three days later, while riding a Bronx subway train, MAGA hat-wearing Corey Cataldo endured an attacker’s attempted strangulation for being “another white Trump supporter.”
Others soon learned that MAGA hats attract fists.
Terry Pierce, Bryton Turner, Gunnar Johnson, Jonathan Sparks, Hunter Richard, Eugenior Joseph, and Jahangir Turan are among the MAGA hat-wearing Trump lovers whom Trump haters eventually attacked—often drawing blood.
Radical film director Michael Moore instructed leftists to “disrupt the Inauguration.”
Message received.
“On Inauguration Day, more riots erupted in Washington, D.C.,” Hemingway wrote. “Hundreds were arrested as black-clad rioters set cars on fire, threw bricks, and injured police.”
While Team Biden’s strategic amnesia obscures these facts, the right should use them to expose their leftist sins.
*********************************************************
Should minorities be angry at the Queen? The Australian case
ABC journalist Stan Grant is furious. He is part Aboriginal and apparently grew up among them. Some excerpts from his comments follow below after this note.
Since the Queen was a-political it is pretty dumb to blame her for ANYTHING Blame the governments of her time maybe but she had no part in their decisions or actions.
But the big problem with the sorrow he expresses below is that Grant assigns NO responsibility for what blacks underwent to Aborigines themselves. He attributes all the woe felt by Aboringines to British colonialism.
But look at another colonized group. The people of Hong Kong were until quite recently a literal Crown Colony. So how do they feel about the Queen and the British legacy? The mourning there for the Queen was epochal. It was at least as great as the demonstrations of feeling in Britain itelf. They loved the Queen.
Clrearly it was not colonialism that was bad for the colonized. It has to have been something else that caused grief to Aborigines.
And what that was is no mystery. The people of Hong Kong are Chinese and, as such, the inheritors of thousands of years of civilization. So they were well equipped to thrive under Britain's civilizing influence. So they appreciated the opportunities that Britain brought and vigorously grasped those opportunities to their own great benefit
Aborigines, by contrast, come from the most primitive type of culture -- a hunter/gatherer culture. They had none of the mentality, customs, attitudes and skills that the Chinese do. Aborigines have traits and abilities that equip them well for their ancestral lifestyle but those same traits tend to be a hindrance rather than a help in adjusting to modern civilization.
No doubt both Aborigines and Hong Kongers were at times badly treated by their respective governments but the Aborigies did not adapt. They simply lacked the ability to do so. And from that the rest of their experience flowed. They simply could not help themselves and others were slow to come forward to help them. And now that many attempts have been made to help them there are still many who seem unhelpable. Given their origins that will continue
I called my mother this week and she told me the story of her childhood brush with royalty over again. I have thought about mum and dad and all of my family, of my people — First Nations people — who die young and live impoverished and imprisoned lives in this country.
We aren't supposed to talk about these things this week. We aren't supposed to talk about colonisation, empire, violence about Aboriginal sovereignty, not even about the republic.
We've skirted around the edges of the truth of the legacy that the Queen leaves in Australia, a reign that lasted almost a third of our colonial history.
I'm sure I am not alone amongst Indigenous people wrestling with swirling emotions. Among them has been anger. The choking asphyxiating anger at the suffering and injustice my people endure.
This anger is not good for me. It is not good for my mental health. It is not good for my physical health. I have been short of breath and dizzy.
But that is nothing compared to what too many other Indigenous people go through day after day. Those languishing in cells. Those who take their own lives. Those who are caught in endless cycles of despair.
This past week, I have been reminded what it is to come from the other side of history. History itself that is written as a hymn to whiteness.
History written by the victors and often written in blood. It is fashioned as a tale of progress, as a civilising mission.
As historian Caroline Elkins writes in Legacies of Violence, her history of the British Empire, for hundreds of millions of people "the empire's velvet glove contained an all too familiar iron fist".
From India to Africa to Ireland, the Pacific, the Caribbean and of course here, Australia, people from the other side of history have felt that fist.
It is not a zero-sum game. There are things in the British tradition that have enriched my life. But history is not weighted on the scales, it is felt in our bones. It is worn on our skin. It is scarred in memory.
How do we live with the weight of this history? How do we not fall prey to soul-destroying vengeance and resentment, yet never relent in our righteous demand for justice?
At times like these I struggle with that dilemma. Because Australia has never reached a just settlement with First Nations people.
But again, we don't talk about that this week.
I have felt a sadness at feeling adrift, estranged from friends and colleagues. Sadness at knowing that at times like these there is a chasm between us.
I have watched as others have worn black and reported on this historic event, participated in this ritual mourning. And knowing I cannot.
They come to this with no conflict. I cannot.
****************************************
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)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment