Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

SJWs stream into science: Don’t cite white male geographers

arroba Email

From Carie Mott and Daniel Cockayne, “Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement’” at Journal Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography:

Abstract: An increasing amount of scholarship in critical, feminist, and anti-racist geographies has recently focused self-reflexively on the topics of exclusion and discrimination within the discipline itself. In this article we contribute to this literature by considering citation as a problematic technology that contributes to the reproduction of the white heteromasculinity of geographical thought and scholarship, despite advances toward more inclusivity in the discipline in recent decades. Yet we also suggest, against citation counting and other related neoliberal technologies that imprecisely approximate measures of impact, influence, and academic excellence, citation thought conscientiously can also be a feminist and anti-racist technology of resistance that demonstrates engagement with those authors and voices we want to carry forward. We argue for a conscientious engagement with the politics of citation as a geographical practice that is mindful of how citational practices can be a tool for either the reification of, or resistance to, unethical hierarchies of knowledge production. We offer practical and conceptual reasons for carefully thinking through the role of citation as a performative embodiment of the reproduction of geographical thought. More.

Generally speaking, these types of people get the control of information they seek because so many institutions of learning are now run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have nothing at stake in an intellectual matter. They can spin tax-funded failure as easily as tax-funded success. And now the mess that has turned so many humanities disciplines into pricey neurotic meltdowns for unstable young adults is invading science.

Even while this quite serious war on reason, evidence, and good scholarly practice is ramping up, the Tone Deaf are carrying on about how to fix people who doubt Darwin on the evidence. See, for example,

More Tales of the Tone Deaf: How to weed creationism out of schools

Tales of the tone deaf: Doubt of science authorities as social deviance


More tone-deafness: How to force Darwinism down people’s throats

Like we said, the guns are pointing the wrong way. And the problem is getting worse.

See also: Objectivity is sexist.

Social justice warriors hit engineering. This is what happens when scientists come to believe that consciousness is an illusion and objectivity is sexist.

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

The war on freedom is rotting our intellectual life: Intersectionality

Journal Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science

From Nature: US “Academic freedom” bills are “anti-science”

At Aqaba, the guns were facing out to sea but guess what?

Hat tip: Washington Times “ Two feminist geographers are encouraging their colleagues to be more mindful about citing the research of white males because doing so contributes to “the reproduction of white heteromasculinity of geographical thought and scholarship.” (Bradford Richardson)

Pindi "if there is a god, why should we assume that the correct ethical position is what he/she/it decides?" Given that God is the greatest possible being, we already assume that the correct ethical position is what He decides, whether we believe in Him or not. CannuckianYankee
TWSYF, if there is a god, why should we assume that the correct ethical position is what he/she/it decides? Pindi
Seversky @ 12: If there is a God...He/She/It decides. If there is no God, we each decide on our own with no one person (or group) having moral superiority...just different preferences. On this topic, I am personally persuaded by C.S. Lewis's arguments set forth in Mere Christianity. Truth Will Set You Free
Truth Will Set You Free @ 7
EMH @ 5: A/mats typically rely on group think at this point, i.e. if the larger group within a society believes something to be unethical, then it IS unethical within that society…even though it is only subjectively unethical. There are, of course, all sorts of problems with this way of thinking…but that doesn’t seem to bother a/mats.
So who else gets to decide? Seversky
"Bureaucrats have nothing at stake in an academic question" No, that's not it. Bureaucrats always want to insure their own survival and expansion. Thus they always want to satisfy the people who can assure their expansion. For college admins, the controllers are (1) Federal government bureaucrats (2) Big foundations (3) Accrediting agencies. Government and foundations are the SOURCE of these atrocious tendencies and ideas. Accrediting agencies SUPPORT these tendencies. So bureaucrats have every reason to stay on the same track. In smaller and less wealthy schools, parents are just now starting to exert influence by keeping their kids away from the worst places. Bureaucrats in those schools will eventually have to respond to this, but their lifelong habits are strongly inertial. In larger and richer schools, prestige will keep the students coming no matter how horrible the actual education is. Harvard and Yale are solely prestige-generators. Education is not part of their mission. polistra
“Among the postmodernist types, man; they don’t give a damn for facts. In fact, facts for them are merely whatever the current power hierarchy uses to justify their acquisition of power.” Jordan Peterson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOPOmrIOaqU&index=3&list=PL1hcb-Q_LY_Bd0PSk-pGuGbwWhveJSbjt CannuckianYankee
TWSYF, Their cognitive synapses need some harmonizing. They're dissonant. It hurts. CannuckianYankee
jstanley01 I'm a big fan of Jordan Peterson. Love his lectures and speeches. He's a bit of a social Darwinist though, so there is that caution. But you can accept his conclusions without accepting his Darwinian commitments. He's well read in Solzhenitsyn in his analysis of the results of a Marxist ideology on society. Very instructive. And as far as I'm concerned, he's the top expert on postmodernism. He's much like Brett Weinstein at Evergreen State College in Washington; a Darwinist who fights the SJW agenda. CannuckianYankee
EMH @ 5: A/mats typically rely on group think at this point, i.e. if the larger group within a society believes something to be unethical, then it IS unethical within that society...even though it is only subjectively unethical. There are, of course, all sorts of problems with this way of thinking...but that doesn't seem to bother a/mats. Truth Will Set You Free
CY @ 4: They don't. Which is the crux of the problem. “God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of.” - Bruce Springsteen (Brilliant Disguise, 1987) Truth Will Set You Free
If morality is relative, how can anything be unethical? EricMH
If gender is non-binary, how do they know that they are male? CannuckianYankee
Since I have a degree in Geography, it note that in the United States "geography" does NOT have a definition. This is because the National Geographic Society can't agree on whether Geography is a Physical Science (which includes Meteorology, Climatology, Cartography, and Geology) or a Social Science (which includes Urban Planning, Ethnology, and I forget what else). The Geography Department at DePaul at least USED to agree with the Physical Science guys, and so we had to take courses in Climatology and Cartography and bits of Physical Geography as it applies to the formation of continents and mountain ranges and stuff. But if the Social Science guys are winning or have won the war, then the purpose of "Geography" is to support theories and decisions made by the Social Sciences guys with degrees in Political Science (politics is a "science"?), History (after it is properly censored and refocused), and whatnot. Social Science Geography is very much aligned with the "and how does that make you FEEL?" school of learning. So there isn't a whole lot of emphasis on facts, which change every couple years anyhow. vmahuna
jstanley01, I heard him speak in Toronto recently. Impressive. News
Prof. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, ties together how the Postmodernists and their SJW children are related to twentieth-century totalitarians...
Since the 1970s, under the guise of Postmodernism, we've seen the rapid expansion of identity politics throughout the universities. It has come to dominate all of the Humanities, which are dead as far as I can tell, and a huge proportion of the Social Sciences. We've been publicly funding extremely radical Postmodernist thinkers who are hell-bent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western Civilization. And that's no paranoid delusion. That's their self-admitted goal... Jordan Peterson Exposes the Postmodernist Agenda (Part 1 of 7)

Leave a Reply