I've been thinking lately about how social science has transformed the modern world. If you look into all the major social movements since the end of WW2, they all had some sort of backing by social science research - everything from the UNESCO Statement on Race to Brown vs. Board of Education, to open borders immigration. It now appears obvious that most of that research was of poor quality or outright fraudulent, and the the research that should have been completed was prohibited for ideological reasons.
There are a number of theories lately about the rise of "wokeness" and the root causes of our modern social milieu, but in almost every case it seems the the arguments for radical change were supported by bad science. I know many highly educated liberal-minded people and they commonly justify their beliefs with various social science dogma. They are technically making the best educated decision based on the scientific knowledge they are exposed to, it's just that the science is often of poor quality. The conservatives, with their instinctual mistrust of intellectuals, ended up being right on many issues simply because they didn't believe the experts.
Perhaps the replication crisis, our racial turmoil, mass migration and even the explosion of transgenderism in kids all have the same root cause - bad science.
There is a great book about this, "The Sacred Project Of American Sociology" by Christian Smith.
"American sociology as a collective enterprise is at heart committed to the visionary project of realizing the emancipation, equality, and moral affirmation of all human beings as autonomous, self-directing, individual agents (who should be) out to live their lives as they personally so desire, by constructing their own favored identities, entering and exiting relationships as they choose, and equally enjoying the gratification of experiential, material, and bodily pleasures...
If we had to characterize American sociology’s sacred project in brief, therefore, we might say that it stands in the modern liberal-Enlightenment-Marxist-social-reformist-pragmatist-therapeutic-sexually liberated-civil rights-feminist-GLBTQ-social constructionist- poststructuralist/postmodernist “tradition.”
The project is fundamentally transformational, reformist, sometimes revolutionary. It is about “changing the world” to “make the world a better place.”...Change needs to be systemic, institutional, and sometimes radical—in the etymological sense of “going to the root” of things. So when the new world envisioned by this spiritual project is finally realized, it will be very different from the present world."
"They are technically making the best educated decision based on the scientific knowledge they are exposed to, it's just that the science is often of poor quality. The conservatives, with their instinctual mistrust of intellectuals, ended up being right on many issues simply because they didn't believe the experts."
Yes, and the eternal upshot here is that moral and political decisions are not fundamentally matters of expertise.
Social science has its uses, but its place in any sensible decision-making regimen should be
In an earlier, pre-Woke world, the world's biggest genetics researcher, BGI, was collecting DNA samples from geniuses around the world. Many Google staff were invited to contribute, but the bulk of the samples came from China, where geniuses a plentiful. As I recall, the IQ division was run by a teenager, a fascinating story in itself.
Steve Hsu, who was involved with BGI knows the history, which would make a good Aporia feature.
"In an earlier, pre-Woke world, the world's biggest genetics researcher, BGI, was collecting DNA samples from geniuses around the world. Many Google staff were invited to contribute, but the bulk of the samples came from China, where geniuses a plentiful."
And this will be a great advantage for China in the ascent of humanity.
Good article, and one has to be dismayed at the general state of academe when both scientists and philosophers are so ideologically hamstrung. That much being said, I'll note that Merton's list is pretty good, as far as it goes, but the fly in the epistemological ointment comes with #3, disinterestedness. It's important to ask whether this is really the right ideal.
The ancients doubted whether knowledge could be sought without passion -- directed passion. Philosophy was a species of eros, and the idea that one could break the chains of convention without this force would have been considered foolhardy. Even in the modern era, however, there is a tradition of skepticism among empiricists on the capacity of human beings to achieve Cartesian "neutrality," or that the activity of science even involves such a thing. Hume is a good example here, especially since he insisted on the difference between thinking and feeling, knowing and valuing.
In this way of seeing the matter, trying to get everyone to jettison ideological, religious, political commitment itself becomes a veil for dogma, since someone has to determine where the boundaries of these things begin and end. It would, instead, be better to insist on pluralism where we can get it. In the (relatively) recent past, Paul Feyerabend has made good arguments for this kind of position.
On race, the problem is that all of these conversations about relative costs and benefits presuppose the egalitarian moral frame of late liberalism. So instead of saying, in effect, "put that frame away" we would perhaps be better off advancing with "here are some other frames."
Noah, thanks for an excellent informative article. I was unaware of the Mertonian norms, but they are essential philosophy for continued scientific progress. I greatly support research in human genetics, especially the genetic enhancement of traits.
One thing is for sure: China and perhaps Russia will not be encumbered by the woke nonsense. They will embrace this research with enthusiasm.
It is precisely because the cancellers themselves hold the less intelligent in contempt, for example, as "deplorables", that they wish to stifle this research. An imputation of my own fault onto everyone else.
All of these things run contrary to the bureaucratic principles that worm their way into every endeavor - rigid, specific procedures moderated by "expertise" judge us based on objectives set by managers, in order to offer exceeded targets based on measurable metrics, as a matter of survival.
The very phenomenon of "statements" issued in the name of some "associations" having any weight at all in the discussions, deliberations and actions about anything, immediately places these discussions, deliberations and actions far beyond the scope of science.
Merton is lovely in the abstract, if ethics and humanity were irrelevant. As I’ve read him in the past he seems to miss the fact that science is conducted by actual humans. Pride and shame are powerful motivators, among many. As a very old TV show had as a byline “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat”.
Science is a consensus-based activity, which in turn is highly dependent on communication in the human sphere. With the bizarre pseudo-science of gender you see the a phenomenon of cringing at speaking of sex. Consensus arrives through the people who are the least prudish.
With intelligence you have a similar cringe factor which I think can only be remediated by dropping tests, and refocusing on entropy, complexity, and connectivity of the brain which can be measured directly, quickly, and through calibrated tools in a unifie language. Consensus will arrive through material data.
If a group of scientists don’t arrive at a majority consensus on what an experiment or measurement or proof means relative to a hypothesis or theory, it doesn’t become a scientific fact. But scientists can also arrive at consensus of scientific facts without empirical evidence. The connection to scientific fact is consensus, not process. It’s that easy.
Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford claimed that most people had been exposed to COVID already, and response was overblown. Tests his team performed in early 2020 “proved” this. Others examining his evidence found elementary arithmetic errors due to a fundamental misunderstanding of epidemiology. Had his claim been true, over 150% of NYC residents would have been infected by Covid as many pointed out, at the period in the epidemic when they were stacking corpses in cooling trucks. His view never achieved consensus yet he continues to spout out similar views on Covid, some of which are repeated now by journalists as fact.
In the 60’s Dr John Money theorized with others that “gender identity” and “gender role” existed, could be altered through socialization, and homosexuality was created through socialization. He performed surgery on the sex organs of male children, used socialization to enforce behaviors deemed feminine and homosexual, and claimed success. Scientific consensus was that this was truth, and it was widely taught.
Later it came to light that his experiments were actually catastrophic failures, hidden by him. You cannot change a heterosexual male to a homosexual male via surgery, hormonal therapy and intense socialization. We know empirically that gay men cannot be converted to straight. We know empirically that there are neural substrates that are different between gay, straight, and bisexual people. Sex is immutable. You can, however, sterilize people and extinguish sex drive and claim victory. Absence of sex drive and sterilization is not conversion, it is an abomination.
However his remaining theories on “gender”, without any empirical support, are still accepted as fact because they were taught as scientific consensus, ergo fact. It is slowly dawning on people that “gender” is an attempt to use science to support and enforce sexist stereotyping, and has no basis in reality.
This happens regularly in science unfortunately, gaining consensus without evidence. Thats why I find Merton nice but dubious. It doesn't seem to have observed natural history of science supporting it.
"If a group of scientists don’t arrive at a majority consensus on what an experiment or measurement or proof means relative to a hypothesis or theory, it doesn’t become a scientific fact."
Science is never settled. Yesterday's 'science fact' may be tomorrow's folly. Science is not a democratic process.
"If a group of scientists don’t arrive at a majority consensus on what an experiment or measurement or proof means relative to a hypothesis or theory, it doesn’t become a scientific fact."
Science is never settled. Yesterday's 'science fact' may be tomorrow's folly. Science is not a democratic process.
My statement is true, and your first two statements are true. However your third is false.
No scientific fact is estaished except through consensus of sufficient proof. Do you have an example a scientific fact which was never agreed to by the scientific community, a la Merton?
"Do you have an example a scientific fact which was never agreed to by the scientific community, a la Merton?"
I see Merton's position differently than you do.
"However your third is false."
Of course, I don't agree. I believe that 'Science is not a democratic process' is correct. The contention over AGW is a great example. Supporters of AGW claim that most scientists agree that 'the science is settled' despite the fact that there is not sufficient proof. Of course, AGW is not a scientific issue...it is a political issue.
And political issues are...? Fascist? Authoritarian? Democratic? A consensus was arrived at and established as "fact", until a different set of stronger (real) facts arrive and consensus changes. I don't think we're at odds; I believe consensus building is part of science; however consensus can be assumed or generated without evidence in which case new evidence blows away consensus.
Generating facts is not a democratic or consensus activity. Acting on facts is. Perhaps that where I’m misreading the conversation.
Is their a First Amendment case against government agencies withholding information on ideological grounds? If not, then surely the Freedom of Information Act should apply.
"And they’re told that basic concepts like objectivity are manifestations of a nefarious ideology called “whiteness”.
I am not sure claiming that relation (objectivity-whiteness) is in error. What I tend to be sure of is, on the other hand, we whites should hold that as a badge of honour.
"Anyone accused of promoting “racism”, “white supremacy” or “eugenics” – often for no other reason than that they subscribe to a particular explanation for intractable group differences – is essentially unwelcome in academia. Their claims are rejected and their careers are restricted because of irrelevant, personal criteria."
The answer to that is for the people with authentic academia-level skill, and a will to work for truth and not their money and status, to found their own academia.
Thanks to the Internet, such people and their newly-founded academia would also have media of their own to reach people who shared their values.
The idea that Objectivity is a White People thing comes from Orientalist racism & 19th Century pseudoscience, not actual history or cultural differences. It's hilarious how SJWs embrace degrading myths about Non-Whites and the Non-Western world when it suits them.
Objectivity is a human universal not a Western thing.
I wonder if studies would be permitted if they showed a certain privileged group as being higher or “superior” in certain desired traits?
their valuation in domains like “intelligence” or “aptitude” betrays their own prejudice of seeing these traits as being superior. I mean, is it the responsibility of science to determine whether IQ as a trait are superior? by that claim aren’t they revealing their own views of themselves as scientists as being inherently better than the unwashed masses? as you said, doesn’t that claim belong to metaphysics or social standards?
I've been thinking lately about how social science has transformed the modern world. If you look into all the major social movements since the end of WW2, they all had some sort of backing by social science research - everything from the UNESCO Statement on Race to Brown vs. Board of Education, to open borders immigration. It now appears obvious that most of that research was of poor quality or outright fraudulent, and the the research that should have been completed was prohibited for ideological reasons.
There are a number of theories lately about the rise of "wokeness" and the root causes of our modern social milieu, but in almost every case it seems the the arguments for radical change were supported by bad science. I know many highly educated liberal-minded people and they commonly justify their beliefs with various social science dogma. They are technically making the best educated decision based on the scientific knowledge they are exposed to, it's just that the science is often of poor quality. The conservatives, with their instinctual mistrust of intellectuals, ended up being right on many issues simply because they didn't believe the experts.
Perhaps the replication crisis, our racial turmoil, mass migration and even the explosion of transgenderism in kids all have the same root cause - bad science.
There is a great book about this, "The Sacred Project Of American Sociology" by Christian Smith.
"American sociology as a collective enterprise is at heart committed to the visionary project of realizing the emancipation, equality, and moral affirmation of all human beings as autonomous, self-directing, individual agents (who should be) out to live their lives as they personally so desire, by constructing their own favored identities, entering and exiting relationships as they choose, and equally enjoying the gratification of experiential, material, and bodily pleasures...
If we had to characterize American sociology’s sacred project in brief, therefore, we might say that it stands in the modern liberal-Enlightenment-Marxist-social-reformist-pragmatist-therapeutic-sexually liberated-civil rights-feminist-GLBTQ-social constructionist- poststructuralist/postmodernist “tradition.”
The project is fundamentally transformational, reformist, sometimes revolutionary. It is about “changing the world” to “make the world a better place.”...Change needs to be systemic, institutional, and sometimes radical—in the etymological sense of “going to the root” of things. So when the new world envisioned by this spiritual project is finally realized, it will be very different from the present world."
Thank you for recommending this book - I started reading it a few days ago.
"They are technically making the best educated decision based on the scientific knowledge they are exposed to, it's just that the science is often of poor quality. The conservatives, with their instinctual mistrust of intellectuals, ended up being right on many issues simply because they didn't believe the experts."
Yes, and the eternal upshot here is that moral and political decisions are not fundamentally matters of expertise.
Social science has its uses, but its place in any sensible decision-making regimen should be
secondary or tertiary.
The Enlightenment is the origin of Wokeness and Leftism in general
In an earlier, pre-Woke world, the world's biggest genetics researcher, BGI, was collecting DNA samples from geniuses around the world. Many Google staff were invited to contribute, but the bulk of the samples came from China, where geniuses a plentiful. As I recall, the IQ division was run by a teenager, a fascinating story in itself.
Steve Hsu, who was involved with BGI knows the history, which would make a good Aporia feature.
"In an earlier, pre-Woke world, the world's biggest genetics researcher, BGI, was collecting DNA samples from geniuses around the world. Many Google staff were invited to contribute, but the bulk of the samples came from China, where geniuses a plentiful."
And this will be a great advantage for China in the ascent of humanity.
Good article, and one has to be dismayed at the general state of academe when both scientists and philosophers are so ideologically hamstrung. That much being said, I'll note that Merton's list is pretty good, as far as it goes, but the fly in the epistemological ointment comes with #3, disinterestedness. It's important to ask whether this is really the right ideal.
The ancients doubted whether knowledge could be sought without passion -- directed passion. Philosophy was a species of eros, and the idea that one could break the chains of convention without this force would have been considered foolhardy. Even in the modern era, however, there is a tradition of skepticism among empiricists on the capacity of human beings to achieve Cartesian "neutrality," or that the activity of science even involves such a thing. Hume is a good example here, especially since he insisted on the difference between thinking and feeling, knowing and valuing.
In this way of seeing the matter, trying to get everyone to jettison ideological, religious, political commitment itself becomes a veil for dogma, since someone has to determine where the boundaries of these things begin and end. It would, instead, be better to insist on pluralism where we can get it. In the (relatively) recent past, Paul Feyerabend has made good arguments for this kind of position.
On race, the problem is that all of these conversations about relative costs and benefits presuppose the egalitarian moral frame of late liberalism. So instead of saying, in effect, "put that frame away" we would perhaps be better off advancing with "here are some other frames."
Noah, thanks for an excellent informative article. I was unaware of the Mertonian norms, but they are essential philosophy for continued scientific progress. I greatly support research in human genetics, especially the genetic enhancement of traits.
One thing is for sure: China and perhaps Russia will not be encumbered by the woke nonsense. They will embrace this research with enthusiasm.
It is precisely because the cancellers themselves hold the less intelligent in contempt, for example, as "deplorables", that they wish to stifle this research. An imputation of my own fault onto everyone else.
All of these things run contrary to the bureaucratic principles that worm their way into every endeavor - rigid, specific procedures moderated by "expertise" judge us based on objectives set by managers, in order to offer exceeded targets based on measurable metrics, as a matter of survival.
https://argomend.substack.com/i/134441890/academia-bureaucracy-and-clergy
Thanks!
The very phenomenon of "statements" issued in the name of some "associations" having any weight at all in the discussions, deliberations and actions about anything, immediately places these discussions, deliberations and actions far beyond the scope of science.
Yep.
Merton is lovely in the abstract, if ethics and humanity were irrelevant. As I’ve read him in the past he seems to miss the fact that science is conducted by actual humans. Pride and shame are powerful motivators, among many. As a very old TV show had as a byline “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat”.
Science is a consensus-based activity, which in turn is highly dependent on communication in the human sphere. With the bizarre pseudo-science of gender you see the a phenomenon of cringing at speaking of sex. Consensus arrives through the people who are the least prudish.
With intelligence you have a similar cringe factor which I think can only be remediated by dropping tests, and refocusing on entropy, complexity, and connectivity of the brain which can be measured directly, quickly, and through calibrated tools in a unifie language. Consensus will arrive through material data.
"Science is a consensus-based activity,..."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Actual science is a contentious based activity.
If a group of scientists don’t arrive at a majority consensus on what an experiment or measurement or proof means relative to a hypothesis or theory, it doesn’t become a scientific fact. But scientists can also arrive at consensus of scientific facts without empirical evidence. The connection to scientific fact is consensus, not process. It’s that easy.
Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford claimed that most people had been exposed to COVID already, and response was overblown. Tests his team performed in early 2020 “proved” this. Others examining his evidence found elementary arithmetic errors due to a fundamental misunderstanding of epidemiology. Had his claim been true, over 150% of NYC residents would have been infected by Covid as many pointed out, at the period in the epidemic when they were stacking corpses in cooling trucks. His view never achieved consensus yet he continues to spout out similar views on Covid, some of which are repeated now by journalists as fact.
In the 60’s Dr John Money theorized with others that “gender identity” and “gender role” existed, could be altered through socialization, and homosexuality was created through socialization. He performed surgery on the sex organs of male children, used socialization to enforce behaviors deemed feminine and homosexual, and claimed success. Scientific consensus was that this was truth, and it was widely taught.
Later it came to light that his experiments were actually catastrophic failures, hidden by him. You cannot change a heterosexual male to a homosexual male via surgery, hormonal therapy and intense socialization. We know empirically that gay men cannot be converted to straight. We know empirically that there are neural substrates that are different between gay, straight, and bisexual people. Sex is immutable. You can, however, sterilize people and extinguish sex drive and claim victory. Absence of sex drive and sterilization is not conversion, it is an abomination.
However his remaining theories on “gender”, without any empirical support, are still accepted as fact because they were taught as scientific consensus, ergo fact. It is slowly dawning on people that “gender” is an attempt to use science to support and enforce sexist stereotyping, and has no basis in reality.
This happens regularly in science unfortunately, gaining consensus without evidence. Thats why I find Merton nice but dubious. It doesn't seem to have observed natural history of science supporting it.
"If a group of scientists don’t arrive at a majority consensus on what an experiment or measurement or proof means relative to a hypothesis or theory, it doesn’t become a scientific fact."
Science is never settled. Yesterday's 'science fact' may be tomorrow's folly. Science is not a democratic process.
You quote me:
"If a group of scientists don’t arrive at a majority consensus on what an experiment or measurement or proof means relative to a hypothesis or theory, it doesn’t become a scientific fact."
Science is never settled. Yesterday's 'science fact' may be tomorrow's folly. Science is not a democratic process.
My statement is true, and your first two statements are true. However your third is false.
No scientific fact is estaished except through consensus of sufficient proof. Do you have an example a scientific fact which was never agreed to by the scientific community, a la Merton?
"Do you have an example a scientific fact which was never agreed to by the scientific community, a la Merton?"
I see Merton's position differently than you do.
"However your third is false."
Of course, I don't agree. I believe that 'Science is not a democratic process' is correct. The contention over AGW is a great example. Supporters of AGW claim that most scientists agree that 'the science is settled' despite the fact that there is not sufficient proof. Of course, AGW is not a scientific issue...it is a political issue.
And political issues are...? Fascist? Authoritarian? Democratic? A consensus was arrived at and established as "fact", until a different set of stronger (real) facts arrive and consensus changes. I don't think we're at odds; I believe consensus building is part of science; however consensus can be assumed or generated without evidence in which case new evidence blows away consensus.
Generating facts is not a democratic or consensus activity. Acting on facts is. Perhaps that where I’m misreading the conversation.
Is their a First Amendment case against government agencies withholding information on ideological grounds? If not, then surely the Freedom of Information Act should apply.
"And they’re told that basic concepts like objectivity are manifestations of a nefarious ideology called “whiteness”.
I am not sure claiming that relation (objectivity-whiteness) is in error. What I tend to be sure of is, on the other hand, we whites should hold that as a badge of honour.
"Anyone accused of promoting “racism”, “white supremacy” or “eugenics” – often for no other reason than that they subscribe to a particular explanation for intractable group differences – is essentially unwelcome in academia. Their claims are rejected and their careers are restricted because of irrelevant, personal criteria."
The answer to that is for the people with authentic academia-level skill, and a will to work for truth and not their money and status, to found their own academia.
Thanks to the Internet, such people and their newly-founded academia would also have media of their own to reach people who shared their values.
The idea that Objectivity is a White People thing comes from Orientalist racism & 19th Century pseudoscience, not actual history or cultural differences. It's hilarious how SJWs embrace degrading myths about Non-Whites and the Non-Western world when it suits them.
Objectivity is a human universal not a Western thing.
I wonder if studies would be permitted if they showed a certain privileged group as being higher or “superior” in certain desired traits?
their valuation in domains like “intelligence” or “aptitude” betrays their own prejudice of seeing these traits as being superior. I mean, is it the responsibility of science to determine whether IQ as a trait are superior? by that claim aren’t they revealing their own views of themselves as scientists as being inherently better than the unwashed masses? as you said, doesn’t that claim belong to metaphysics or social standards?