Over at Powerlineblog we are reminded why a person who is holding a faulty position should not argue with a good lawyer.
The article refers to a female scientist screaming about the fake science of Evolutionary psychology which in part postulates that men and women are- hold onto your britches- different! The woman writing the article possesses a hyphenated name. It’s been my experience when a liberal progressive woman makes sure she hyphenates her name for “identity purposes” you can be assured she’s flying WAY out there somewhere. This author, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, has some pretty strident opinions and appears to not hesitate to share.
Here is the title that caught Powerline’s attention:
Powerline points out a key passage.
Science is sold to us as an almost holy, objective pursuit: a pure endeavor, a way of pursuing truth and only truth. . . But nowhere is it more evident that this perspective is flawed than when we consider the uses and abuses of evolutionary biology and its sibling, evolutionary psychology.
It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself. For example: It was argued to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains. The well-known scientist who made this comment to me is both a woman and someone who knows quite well that “peer-reviewed” and “correct” are not interchangeable terms. This brings us to the question that many have grappled with this week. It’s 2017, and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a man’s intellect above a woman’s. . .
Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting. In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.’
Then the good lawyer asks the question does this apply to all science, like say Climate Change?
Imagine the testimony where the professor says that Evolutionary psychology is bunk science and that all science can be influenced by bias and agenda. Then the lawyer says, “Including Climate Change?” At which point the professor would have to make a choice, violate the liberal third rail of Climate Change by saying yes maybe it isn’t settled or say indeed science is free of bias and lose her argument against EP.
Here is a paragraph or two from her article. She speaks of inherent bias. Does she hear herself when she speaks? Where did she learn all this and from whom?
Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race in tandem with the early scientific method which placed a high value on taxonomies—which unsurprisingly and almost certainly not coincidentally supported prevailing social views. The standard history of science that is taught to budding scientists is that during the Enlightenment, Europe went from the dark ages to, well, being enlightened by a more progressive mindset characterized by objective “science.” It is the rare scientific education that includes a simultaneous conversation about the rise of violent, imperialist globalization during the same time period. Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.
Much of the science that resulted from this system, conducted primarily by white men, is what helped teach us that women were the inferior sex. Racial taxonomies conveniently confirmed that enslaving African people was a perfectly reasonable behavior since, as Thomas Jefferson put it,s black people were “inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind.” Of course, this apparent inferiority never stopped Jefferson from repeatedly raping his wife’s half-sister, Sally Hemings, herself a product of rape. Jefferson is remembered as a great thinker, but when one reads his writing about race, it becomes immediately evident that rather than being much of a scientist, he was a biased white supremacist who hid behind science as a shield.
Talk about hitting all the PC talking points; Jefferson rapist, white supremacist, warmed climate, culture theft..
But of course, like most liberals, she will demand to both have her cake and eat it too. But the truth would be known to all, at least to all who didn’t major in women studies.