The A-Unicornist
Science. Reason. Culture. Unicorns.
Feminist Glaciers and the Science Culture Wars
Steven Pinker recently penned a massive essay for Chronicle called "The Intellectual War on Science." I'm generally a pretty big fan of Pinker, but I am skeptical of this narrative that there's a "war on science," fed by some sort of postmodernist view that truth is relative. This is a popular narrative among people like Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad, who seem to think postmodernism (and the damn feminists!) are ruining science. Saad, for example, recently mocked an event purporting to address feminist issues in science, saying sarcastically, "I've always thought that research on the distribution of prime numbers was biased by the male gaze. Let's have a more diverse and inclusive understanding of number theory."
Before proceeding, I want to lead with a quote by one of my favorite scientists, cognitive linguist George Lakoff. In his book Philosophy in the Flesh, he remarks,
Science, as Kuhn rightly observed, does not always proceed by the linear accretion of objective knowledge. Science is a social, cultural, and historical practice, knowledge is always situated, and what counts as knowledge may depend on matters of power and influence. Accordingly, we reject the simpleminded ideas that all science is purely objective, that issues of power and politics never enter into science, that science progresses linearly, and that it can always be trusted.
And with that in mind I want to talk, briefly, about a reference Pinker made in the article. He snidely referenced a research article that purported to discuss feminist issues in climate change:
Many scholars in "science studies" devote their careers to recondite analyses of how the whole institution is just a pretext for oppression. An example is a 2016 article on the world's most pressing challenge, titled "Glaciers, Gender, and Science: A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research," which sought to generate a "robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions."
Google is your friend, here. Now, I'd be the first to tell you there are serious issues in science regarding the quality of research being done, whether it's done just to generate headlines, and the notorious replication crisis. But sometimes something that seems like low-hanging fruit contains more nuance than one might imagine. The author of the "equitable human-ice interactions" study was interviewed by ScienceMag, and once you actually read the interview, it becomes difficult to square his research with Pinker's assertion that it is a "recondite analyses of how the whole institution is just a pretext for oppression." I recommend reading the interview, of course, but here are some choice quotes:
Our paper argues that social science and humanities research can contribute to the development of appropriate strategies for specific and diverse societies to adapt to change. A woman's experience securing postdisaster aid, rebuilding a home, and raising a family after a glacial lake outburst flood has destroyed her community is different than those of men. And for glaciologist Erin Pettit, the founder of the Girls on Ice program for young women to study glaciology, there is something productive and empowering that happens when high school girls learn science and conduct field research in an environment without boys.
There is a large and ever-growing community of researchers in science and technology studies who have been analyzing science through the lens of gender since the 1980s. The research is partly about men versus women in science but more deeply about issues of credibility and legitimacy in science: Who is able to make credible statements about the natural world, given the larger societal structures of inequality? What qualifies as legitimate science? In our current era that increasingly recognizes the importance of indigenous and other local knowledge, there has been more pluralizing of environmental knowledge, which has helped draw more researchers to the study of gender and science.
Let's consider that in light of Lakoff's statement. Contrary to Gaad's insinuation, science is not purely objective; it's a deeply human enterprise. Accordingly, questions of what kinds of research should be done and who should do it are strongly influenced by sociocultural norms, including gender norms. Addressing these in a field like Glaciology isn't anti-intellectual; it's a social scientist exploring how sociocultural norms intersect with the practice of scientific research.
I think there's a certain irony in Pinker criticizing what he sees as a trend of anti-intellectualism while carelessly misrepresenting another scientist simply because the title of one of that scientist's papers appears, at an uncritical glance, to support Pinker's narrative. The moral is: be skeptical of narratives, even when they come from people you respect.
Why Christianity is bullshit, part 1: The Bible is stupid
Imagine that you were the perfect, omnipotent, all-knowing Lord and Creator of the universe. You decided that you were going to give one -- just one -- book to humanity. It would be their moral compass, an insight into their nature and into yours, and act as a guide for how they could live rightly and walk a path that would lead their souls into an eternity with you.
Obviously, the first thing you'd want to put in there are some totally unscientific, archaic behavioral codes for menstruating women, and for pregnant women after they give birth. You'd want to be sure to help them regulate slavery, and specify how badly they were allowed to beat their slaves. And of course you'd want the book to be chock full of mythology -- a creation myth, a flood myth, a fictional exodus, and hagiographical stories about how your loyal armies killed the shit out of everyone who dared to worship the wrong gods.
There's a point here about the Bible that, in my estimation, really cannot b…
The (pseudo) science of the film "Sunshine"
Recently I've been bemoaning the fact that sci-fi horror is one of the most woefully underexploited genres in Hollywood. We can easily count the classics in the genre on one hand — Alien/s, The Thing, The Fly, maybe even 2001 if you think HAL9000 is a scary sonofabitch. There are lots of mediocre to good-but-not-great sci-fi horror flicks — Pitch Black, Pandorum, Mimic, Event Horizon...
The only big-budget film in the genre I can think of is the highly divisive Prometheus (personally, I concur with Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper). I suppose Gravity, which was obviously amazing, could fit in there too — although it seems to fall more under pure 'suspense' than horror. There have been some lower budget sci-fi horror flicks, like the pretty-decent Europa Report and the rather middling Last Days on Mars, but really I have a hard time thinking of outstanding, classic entries in the genre.
In any case, I decided to add Sunshine, directed by Danny Boyl, to the list. I'd hear…
The Bible is a worthless historical document
The story of the Jewish exodus out of Egypt is of pretty pivotal importance in the Bible. It's what established Moses as God's chosen leader of his chosen people, and that leadership became integral to the establishment of Old Testament law. Indeed the covenant of the Jews before Christ came was called the Mosaic Covenant.
One problem though: there's not actually any evidence that it ever happened. There's zero evidence that the people of Israel were ever enslaved by the Egyptians at all, much less that they escaped in a brave insurrection. Some modern-day Christians are fond of incorporating a healthy dose of retroactive rationalization to explain the total lack of contemporaneous or extra-Biblical evidence. But it's a myth, a fable – and most historical scholars know this.
This raises some interesting questions. The creation story of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah and the Whale, the story of Job – all myths, proved completely implausible by modern scienc…
Atheist, humanist, liberal, science lover, metalhead, guitarist, personal trainer, occasionally chef, master of the five-point-palm exploding heart technique.
Accommodationism
Bart Ehrman
Brian Auten
Chrisopher Hitchens
Francis Collins
Michael Egnor
NonStampCollector
Pascal Boyer
Pascal's Wager
The Grand Design
TheraminTress