Is Darwinist Jerry Coyne starting to get it about SJW “science”?
|December 6, 2018||Posted by News under academic freedom, Culture, Darwinism, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, Naturalism|
And anyway, does it even matter, if no one will join him? At least, that’s the word on the street, they’re scared.* Meanwhile, here is Coyne, the author of Why Evolution Is True, concerned about a Woke science studies course that tells us:
In the course of this survey, we shall engage a number of key questions such as: is science gendered, racialized, ableist or classist? Does the presence or absence of women (and another marginalized individuals) lead to the production of different kinds of scientific knowledge? – Science After Feminism (Catherine Taylor)
Jerry says the obvious about the course:
Do any of you doubt for a moment that the answer to both questions is “yes”? (My answers to both would be “no”, since while some scientists may be bigots, science itself cannot be, as it’s simply a method for producing knowledge.) And I’d argue against anyone who claims that different sexes or ethnic groups will produce “different kinds of scientific knowledge”. Maybe they’ll ask different questions, and if that’s what Catherine Taylor means, fine, but there are already plenty of women scientists who ask exactly the same type of questions, in the same way, as do men scientists. Check out Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier’s work on CRISPR/Cas9, which builds on work by a whole community of scientists of different sex and nationality. Doudna and Charpentier approach molecular biology in exactly the way everyone else does.
In fact, if the answers to the course’s questions were “no”, there would be no need for such a course. What we have here is a semester-long exercise in confirmation bias. Jerry Coyne, “Princeton’s course on how marginalized scientists can produce “different ways of knowing”” at Why Evolution Is True
Yes, absolutely, Jerry. And that is the course’s one and only intent: to train up new angry mobs, to demand their right to sit beside Barbara McClintock because they are (or feel that they are) xx’s. And hoo boy, do they have a story to tell…
The Woke actually don’t care about science. Now that they have wrecked the arts, they must go into science for the really good spoils. They use science to generate talking points, to help bash money out of admins and crats who know they are talking nonsense but are too scared to say so. And anyway, there are still lots of people to blame and places to pass the buck to…
The course above is an embarrassment for a school of Princeton’s reputation. It is simply social-justice propaganda that will distort science for ideological ends. It’s dubious scholarship, a waste of the students’ tuition money, and unlikely itself to produce new knowledge. It will produce clones that parrot Clune-Taylor’s ideology.
Everything is true except the embarrassment part. The Woke and their enablers are not embarrass-able. They are the Aggrieved Entitled. And if your colleagues desert you when you say these things, you will be considered the embarrassment. Your biggest problem is whether either you or your colleagues believe strongly enough that there is such a thing as truth, as opposed to an evolved illusion of your consciousness, that you would band together to fight off the aggrieved tentacles and suckers? It would be dreadful to see you and a few others all alone out there, but that’s what it’s coming down to.
See also: The Darwinians’ cowardice before SJW mobs explained in detail: They thought the mob was coming for someone else.
*See The Darwinians’ cowardice in defending science against the Woke?
The perfect storm: Darwinists meet the progressive “evolution deniers” — and cringe… Double down cringe… Rob Sheldon: Despite the pain they feel, they don’t seem to realize it is their own hands that have torn down the edifice of knowledge. They still think that discrimination is valid when they are in charge, that courtesy is only for friends, that objectivity is their personal possession. The mere argumentation used in this article reveals that the academic battles for truth were lost a generation earlier, and today we are simply sweeping up the shards.
Larry Krauss? Francisco Ayala? And now Neil deGrasse Tyson?
Follow UD News at Twitter!