Silenced! Selectivity too close to truth?
|September 9, 2018||Posted by DLH under academic freedom, Culture, Education, Free Speech, Human evolution, Mathematics, Natural selection, Peer review, Popular culture, Probability, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Society|
Should science pursue truth regardless of consequences? Or must we succumb to political correctness? Must selectivity of females always equal males? Consider:
Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole – by Theodore P. Hill
“In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.” . . .“There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.”. . .
“No sooner had Sergei posted a preprint of our accepted article on his website than we began to encounter problems. On August 16, a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women. . . . the National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment of NSF funding be removed from our paper. . .” “letter [this] paper appears to promote pseudoscientific ideas that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF.” . . .Mathematical Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our paper. “Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” . . .her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. . . .Amie Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, had become aware of our paper and written to the journal to complain. . . .I wrote polite emails directly to both Wilkinson and her father . . .Wilkinson continued to trash both the journal and its editor-in-chief on social media . . . faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State . . .I am now retired and rather less easily intimidated—one of the benefits of being a Vietnam combat veteran and former U.S. Army Ranger . . .
an editor at the widely respected online research journal, the New York Journal of Mathematics,. . .Steinberger wrote to confirm publication on November 6, 2017 . . . Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. . .Amie Wilkinson is married to Benson Farb, a member of the NYJM editorial board . . .My paper was “politically charged” and “pseudoscience” and “a piece of crap” and, by encouraging the NYJM to accept it, Rivin had “violat[ed] a scientific duty for purely political ends. . . .Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died. . . .”
The week after I wrote to (University of Chicago President Robert) Zimmer, the Wall Street Journal would describe Chicago as “The Free-Speech University”. . . vice-provost “found no evidence of “academic fraud” and that, consequently, “the charges have been dismissed” . . .Farb and Wilkinson had “exercised their academic freedom in advocating against the publication of the papers” At the Free Speech University, it turns out, talk is cheap.
“First Harvard, then Google, and now the editors-in-chief of two esteemed scientific journals, the National Science Foundation, and the international publisher Springer have all surrendered to demands from the radical academic Left to suppress a controversial idea. Who will be the next, and for what perceived transgression? If bullying and censorship are now to be re-described as ‘advocacy’ and ‘academic freedom,’ as the Chicago administrators would have it, they will simply replace empiricism and rational discourse as the academic instruments of choice.” . . .The University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression summarized the importance of this principle beautifully in a report…:
“In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.”
Why hide, and silence any model differing from the reigning paradigm? Dare we admit that there is abundant evidence of differences between men and women? Examine this paper rejected AFTER being accepted. Why is it being hidden, and purposely ignored, and in effect banned? For being too accurate? Consider Hill’s actual paper:
An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis
Theodore P. Hill
Abstract: “An elementary mathematical theory based on “selectivity” is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistica model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.”