Intelligent Design Peer review Philosophy Science

At City Journal: In science today, correctness openly trumps truth

Spread the love

And Top Scientists are proud of it:

Nature Human Behavior, one of the most prestigious journals for social science research, recently published an editorial titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.” Though short, the article generated tremendous pushback among academics and intellectuals concerned about the spread of social-justice ideology into science. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker said the journal was “no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed,” while Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, described the journal’s statement as “an epistemic catastrophe.” What did the editorial say?

In short, it took the position that scientific truth should defer to politics. The journal now considers it appropriate to suppress research that “undermines—or could reasonably be perceived to undermine—the rights and dignities” of people or groups, as well as “text or images that disparage a person or group on the basis of socially constructed human groupings.” …

The implications on scientific inquiry and truth-seeking are clear. As the journalist Jesse Singal observed, an empirically flawless study could be retracted under the guise of social justice. “What’s most alarming is that unless I’m missing something, research that is perfectly valid and well-executed could run afoul of these guidelines,” he wrote.

Jukka Savolainen, “And Yet It Moves” at City Journal (September 9, 2022)

Irrespective of evidence, if people don’t like what’s being said about them — and they are a perceived victim group — it’s not science.

Well, at least we know how science will end: As a public relations agency!

You may also wish to read: When progressivism hits the science journals… Wesley J. Smith: Science isn’t about politics, opinion polls, or subjective opinions. It is supposed to be about adducing facts about the natural world and applying them. Whether to permit, outlaw, or regulate abortion isn’t a question that science can answer.

7 Replies to “At City Journal: In science today, correctness openly trumps truth

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hooray liberals!! Party of science! Follow the science because it’s determined by them!

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    And Yet It Moves

    An ironic title for the article.

    The scientific opposition to Galileo’s supposed comment was two things that didn’t move. First, the stars and two, the air at the equator. Both explained two hundred years later but not at Galileo’s time.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    The specter of Lysenkoism hovers over the social sciences,

  4. 4
    relatd says:

    It’s not social justice. It’s the Marxist dictatorship that wishes to control people. It does this by infiltrating into all things, including the sciences. Of course, such people are the best – far better than the masses.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker said the journal was “no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed,””

    All I can say is that if Dr. Steven (bestiality/infanticide) Pinker himself is pushing back, then the problem of censorship in science must be far, far worse than the usual censoring of any research related to Intelligent Design, (which is apparently an ‘accepted’ form of censorship which has been going on for decades in academic circles against ID).

    More on Professor Death: Peter Singer and the Danger of the Humanities – Wesley J. Smith – August 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Singer believes that “specieism” is akin to racism:,,,
    Singer is pro-infanticide: On page 186 of his book Practical Ethics, he opines that infants are “replaceable” and that a disabled baby can be killed to pave the way for a happier life for a sibling — even if that brother or sister hasn’t yet been born:
    When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.
    Singer supports using the disabled in medical experiments: In 2006, Singer enraged animal rights activists by justifying the use of monkeys in researching cures for Parkinson’s disease. But he would have said the same thing about using human “non-persons.” In fact, he often has. For example, when asked by Psychology Today about the benefits that chimps provided in developing the hepatitis vaccine, Singer said disabled humans should be used in such research instead.
    Singer is pro-death panel medical discrimination: (health care to people with disabilities and the elderly are “adjusted” down),,,
    Singer has defended bestiality: Singer positively reviewed a book celebrating the history of bestiality, and concluded that the proscription against sex with animals was merely a vestigial “taboo” from a more sexually repressed era. Indeed, he extolled a woman who was unconcerned by the prospect of forced sexual intercourse with an orangutan:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89151.html

    Steven Pinker’s Evolutionary “Explanation” of Infanticide
    Excerpt: One of the hippest intellectuals around recently argued in polite company that it’s difficult to defend laws against killing a baby. But he hardly drew a yawn.,,,
    Pinker maintains that giving birth and then discarding the newborn in the trash is (of all things) best explained as an indirect result of species-preserving evolutionary adaptations. On this basis, Pinker eventually concludes, “The baby killers turn out to be not moral monsters but nice, normal (and sometimes religious) young women.”
    https://www.equip.org/articles/steven-pinkers-evolutionary-explanation-of-infanticide/

    And although Pinker’s ‘evolutionary morality’ is clearly abhorrent and repugnant, at least Pinker did do some good in that, with his war against ‘human exceptionalism’, Pinker did drive at least one person from atheism to Christianity,

    How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus – May 22, 2017
    Excerpt: “I remember leaving Singer’s lectures with a strange intellectual vertigo; I was committed to believing that universal human value was more than just a well-meaning conceit of liberalism. But I knew from my own research in the history of European empires and their encounters with indigenous cultures, that societies have always had different conceptions of human worth, or lack thereof. The premise of human equality is not a self-evident truth: it is profoundly historically contingent. I began to realise that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear.”
    http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/

    A few notes on the ‘accepted’ censorship against ID that goes on in academic circles

    “Consider the irony. When Peter Singer endorsed killing handicapped babies in the crib, at a public lecture in front of the very people he advocated killing, Coyne defended his academic freedom and pleaded: Can’t we all just get along?
    When a professor raises the question of design in an astronomy class, or a museum puts up a donor’s plaque crediting God for nature, Coyne erupts in rage and calls in the lawyers.
    For Coyne, killing babies is a topic for reasoned discussion. Invoking God, or considering scientific evidence of design, is an outrage.
    William Fleming had it right: Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it is an error of the understanding.”
    – Michael Egnor
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/euthanasia-reveals-atheisms-moral-confusion/

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list), (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys…
    ,,, if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained?”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the top-ten synthetic chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? – David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014
    Excerpt: Ironically, it is his (Darwin’s) latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum — such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81261.html

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.”
    – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

  6. 6
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 5,

    With due respect to the commentator, the following stood out: “I never thought that science would have evolved like this.” A poor choice of words.

    He does not see that science, and every other human pursuit, MUST fall under the terrible guidance of the Marxist-Atheist state within a state. The so-called mainstream media is thoroughly infected. Some news sources that are considered “independent” are actually Trojan horses. They say a few good things and then drop in some bad. Some people realize this is happening, others do not.

  7. 7
    Belfast says:

    @relatd @6
    Agreed.

    Ernst Janning:
    Judge Haywood… the reason I asked you to come. Those people, those millions of people… I never knew it would come to that. YOU must believe it, YOU MUST believe it.
    Judge Dan Haywood:
    Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.

Leave a Reply