Sunday, December 9, 2018

Commentary on "Cambridge gives role to academic accused of racist stereotyping"(by the Guardian)

Noah Carl รข€“ Medium
Noah Carl, Social Scientist hounded by PC

It seems the department of Social Sciences now works backwards.

Instead of gathering and analyzing facts & data to reach conclusions, it already has a mandatory set of correct conclusions that must be confirmed by all new research.

Should science work like this? “We have the Correct Answers already, and your job is merely to validate them(even if it takes tortured Procrustean logic.” What’s the point of science on such terms? It’s like saying “We know the sun revolves around the earth, so you better use your calculations to prove what we know already.”

Such wouldn't be matter of scientific invalidation but ethical disapproval based on ideological dogma or bias.

Apparently, according to the current PC system, certain observations are wrong no matter what the factual data-driven evidence says simply because they seem ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, and ‘xenophobic’, none of which are scientific terms, by the way.

It’d be like saying it’s been ‘discredited’ that men are stronger and more aggressive than women because such a statement would be ‘sexist’ and at odds with the dogma that 'gender is just a social construct'. Discredited by science or by ideology?

In reality, Objective Race-ism or Racial Objectivism prevails over Subjective ‘Anti-racism’(or Subjective ‘Racism’ for that matter). By 'race-ism', I mean the belief that races are real and racial differences are the real product of evolutionary divergences among the various races. After all, -Ism means belief, and Race-ism should properly be defined as BELIEF in Race and possibility of racial differences. Reality is what it is regardless of subjective dogmas or prevailing orthodoxies of coerced consensus. Ideologies, unlike true science, are subjective. They compel us to view and determine everything about the world through a single lens.

The fact that 700 academics signed the petition against a scientist who revealed 'uncomfortable' truths suggests that Social Science should now be called Social Silence, a kind of cult that demands ideological conformity and complacency(so easily 'triggered' and outraged into Justice-Hysteria or 'Justyeria' by the slightest whiff of wrong-think). And, it seems most of these preening and snot-nosed academics are mostly about status and peer-approval than courage and integrity.

Furthermore, even if a scientist is a ‘bigot’, it doesn't disprove his findings if they're factual and demonstrable. If a Jewish scientist arrogantly looks down on Gypsies as dumber than Jews, he may be a Jewish supremacist, but it still doesn’t invalidate his factually true observation of higher IQ among Ashkenazi Jews.
Or suppose a black scientist happens to be a black supremacist who says blacks can run faster. He may be an arrogant jerk, but it still doesn’t disprove his case that blacks are generally more muscular and superior in speed, coordination, and jumping ability. Or imagine there's a male 'misogynist' who looks down on women as weaker in body and emotions. Suppose he mocks women for their athletic inferiority and for being quicker to cry. We might agree that he's some kind of an ass, but his statement about sexual differences would still remain true.

Science that rejects what we can obviously SENSE in service of SENSITIVITIES is no science at all.

No comments:

Post a Comment