#social epistemology

[sophiaphile]

Dream Scenario accurately depicts how some people don't have empathy or compassion for other people until they have something similar happen to them. It also captured how frustrating it is to be boxed in and marginalized for things that are outside of a person's control.

Paul (Nic Cage) is a straight, white tenured professor teaching university courses on evolutionary biology.

He repeatedly invokes Rationality™ (as if rational thought can be fully divorced from emotion or normativity). At one point, he cuts Tim Meadows's character off and scoffs at him when he thinks Meadows is considering the "lived experience" of the students who are having heinous nightmares about Paul.

Early in the movie, his wife says she's not having these dreams, but she says that if she did, she'd want him in David Byrne's big suit coming onto her (or something like that I think). He laughs at her fantasy, not listening to what a real life woman is telling him she wants because it is inconsistent with the cultural messages he receives. After he criticizes her, she frustratingly says something like "fine you have a big cock, is that what you wanted to hear?"

He is an evolutionary biologist who thinks that he is smarter and more logical than everyone else. In a lecture, he discusses how zebra's stripes don't blend in with things in their natural habitat; it is a little baffling at first glance why they developed them, but when zebra are in a group their stripes protect them from easily being targeted by predators.

Human psychology (which Paul seems to reject as a field of study) might seem counterintuitive to nature. Given that we are rational beings, why would we judge things based on appearance when we know that there is evidence otherwise (these are just dreams or socialized biases about class, race, gender, etc.; we think we should know better)? Unfortunately, our own psychology is not always clear to us, and there are things going on below the surface of our stated beliefs and intentions, even if we haven't done the work to reflect on it.

On the other hand, developing a defense against traumatic events (real or imagined) can be a healthy defense mechanism, but such thinking is also harmful to those who get thrown under the bus for the group to feel safe (the singled out zebra and society's scapegoats). The dynamic is not fair, but it does make sense despite seeming irrational or arational.

He wants his academic work to be acknowledged, but he is famous for appearing in peoples' dreams. He is frustrated that he can't control his image or the narrative around it.

He hates that people make assumptions about him based off of their dreams, which he has no control over. He doesn't want to be boxed in. He starts to lose his status due to the box he's being put in.

He loses his job, and his wife also loses work opportunities because she's married to him. He continues to spiral and not consider his wife or kids' pov when they ask him to stop feeding into the media hype. He makes decisions that actively ignore his family's reported feelings and experiences because he feels he knows best. His wife leaves him.

Eventually, he is such a social pariah that only Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, France, Tucker Carlson, etc. will have him, but he doesn't want to be associated with right-wing hate.

Because he is boxed in such a stifling way, he can choose only between railing against his box, which gets him nowhere and leaves him with no financial prospects, or conforming and being allowed to participate in society in some compacity (much like people who are marginalized due to their perceived social identity).

Paul didn't care about other peoples' experiences (his wife and kids' reported lived experience of being uncomfortable and wanting him to stop what he was doing) because the system was serving him well enough that he didn't feel the need to question it, which is also why during his downfall, he threw in the school admin's face that he has a PhD and she just has a BA (even though she had her master's); he wanted to reinforce the hierarchy that had served him until it singled him out (via society forming bias against him based off things outside his control, like most marginalized people).

It is ironic because Paul keeps talking about the zebras, but he can't apply the same logic to human beings and that was his hubris. He thinks psychology is bullshit, but it does make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, just like the zebra's stripes do.

He took his privilege for granted and didn't realize he won the social lottery by being white, straight, and upper middle class. He scoffed at the idea of "lived experience" and griped that people need to grow up and that they are too sensitive.

Ironically, the discrimination he faced was his lived experience and other people didn't care because they couldn't help the way their brains formed negative associations with him/his image.

He wanted people to acknowledge his lived experience and check their biases towards him that were informed by their nightmares, but he ignored his wife and kids' lived experience, and he was unwilling to consider whether he was biased in his thinking that he knows best or that they were being too sensitive.

The final scene was crushing. He goes to his wife in a dream to give her the fantasy she described earlier in the movie: him in the DB over-sized Stop Making Sense suit. I wonder whether the suit was maybe meant to symbolize that Paul needed to let go of thinking he was right about everything and that all life adheres to Rationality™ (and instead adheres to a kind of logic he previously rejected). He needed to stop trying to make sense and be more open minded to others' views.

[profestriga]

Some Ursine Epistemology

I’m definitely a bit late to the party here, but I wanted to put down some thoughts. For the last week or so, the man vs bear question has been a staple of internet discourse. For any that are, somehow, unfamiliar, the basic question is would a women rather run into a bear or an unknown man in the woods. Overwhelmingly, the response has been the bear.* Predictably, the response of men to learning about this has been to criticize women for their choice. Some will make claims about the many virtues of men, most will wax on about the real dangers that the bear poses that men don’t, and disturbingly, some seem to revel in the idea of women being mauled for making a putatively dumb choice.**

There’s been a lot of excellent rejoinders to this, which have shown in a number of ways that men’s criticism of women on this question are inevitably misogynistic. I wanted to add another. Here, I aim to show that these men are demonstrating their misogyny using tools adapted from social epistemology. The critical notion that I’m going to rely on here is antireliability. So, when we say that a group is reliable, epistemically, that means that we think that their beliefs usually track the truth. If we say they’re unreliable, we can say that they neither track the truth nor fail to. But if we say that they’re antireliable, it means that we think that they usually get things wrong. I’m borrowing this concept from Hrishikesh Joshi’s really excellent 2020 paper “What Are the Chances You’re Right About Everything?” In this paper, Joshi challenges political partisanship, trying to show that in a partisan society one has to believe that one’s political opponents are not merely unreliable, but antireliable. I don’t want to get to far afield here, so I’ll leave it at that, but highly recommend giving it a read. 

Let’s apply this concept to the man vs. bear conversation. Take an instance where a man criticizes a woman who chooses bear. Usually, this is targeting an individual woman, and saying that *she* is getting the answer wrong. It’s disguised as not being a criticism of women in general, but just one woman. Even if it is a criticism of women in general, it’s taken to be a limited criticism, applicable to this question only. But this is where the concept of antireliability comes in. If women’s answers were mixed on this question, say, 50/50, or even maybe 55/45 in one way or another, we could say that women are unreliable here. If most women should pick bear, half are getting it right, half are getting it wrong. Likewise if most women should pick man. But that’s not how the numbers shake out. There anywhere from a majority to an overwhelming majority. That means that either women are reliable, most of them getting the answer right, or antireliable, most of them getting the answer wrong.

This places any man leveling a criticism here into a pickle—they have to explain why women are antireliable with regard to this question. They don’t just have to explain why choosing man is the better or correct or logical or whathaveyou answer, they have to also explain why women, taken as a group, almost always get it wrong. Suppose that a man thinks that the individual woman he’s criticizing gets the answer wrong because of a logical failure. He then has two optional explanantia. Most women are making a logical error, or this woman is making a logical error, and most women are getting the answer for some other, unknown reason. Why should almost all women make the same logical error? Why should most women make some other error of reasoning? We can ask the same questions regardless of the profferred reason why the criticized women is erring. In any case, the masculine critic here must be attributing to women, taken as a whole, a defect of reasoning. This is misogyny. Moreoever, it’s part of a broad, well documented pattern of misogyny criticizing the rational faculties of women. Of course, the critic could try to say that women are just getting this question wrong, but that doesn’t help. A further explanation would be needed for why women, who have full rational faculties, just seem to get this question wrong. 

I’ll grant that there’s one possible explanation that such a critic might take that doesn’t imply a misogynistic view. It might be that the critic thinks that most women are getting the answer wrong, but that so are most non-women. Now, from what I’ve seen of this discourse, this doesn’t hold up. It seems that women and nonbinary folk overwhelmingly pick bear, while men are pretty mixed. To use the language so far, women and non binary folk are antireliable (from this critic’s perspective) while men are unreliable (from this critic’s perspective). This is enough to produce the problem above. But suppose that the critic here believes that most people, men, women, and nonbinary, all think that bear is the correct choice, and that he has it right, and they all have it wrong. This does allow him to claim that he’s not misogynistic; he’s not saying women are poor reasoners, he’s saying most people are! But here, he is himself being irrational. Because rationality should compel him to ask the question, “what’s the probability that I’m right while the vast majority of people are wrong? What explains that?” He should, in the face of that question, at least moderate his credence in his answer, if not abandoning it altogether. In short, he’s either a misogynist, or a fool. 

*I don’t have firm numbers for this; 9 out of 10 and 7 out of 10 are widely claimed, but I’ve not found any good data. 9 out of 10 seems closer to my perception. If anyone has a source for this, I’d love something else to wave in front of the “facts and logic” crowd’s faces. In any case, it’s obviously a large majority. 

**It’s worth noting, that despite being inundated with discussion of this topic, I’ve yet to see a single apologist for men here produce actual evidence that most bears are particularly dangerous. I’ve seen some women provide evidence to the contrary, though nothing particularly strong. My own wilderness education has always been that if you leave bears alone, they leave you alone, in most circumstances, unlike moose, which will fuck you up.

***edited to fix a typo--at one point I originally said unreliable where it should have read antireliable.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Standpoint

The philosophy of standpoint, often referred to as standpoint theory, is a framework used primarily in feminist and critical theory to explore how knowledge and experience are shaped by social positions and power dynamics. It asserts that individuals' perspectives are influenced by their social and political contexts, particularly their positions within systems of power and oppression. Standpoint theory argues that marginalized or oppressed groups can offer unique and more accurate insights into social realities because their perspectives are shaped by experiences that are often overlooked or devalued by dominant groups.

Key Concepts:

Situated Knowledge: Standpoint theory posits that all knowledge is situated, meaning it is rooted in specific social contexts and power structures. This challenges the notion of objective, universal knowledge that is detached from the knower’s social identity.

Epistemic Privilege: A key idea in standpoint theory is that marginalized groups, because of their lived experiences of oppression, have an epistemic advantage in understanding certain aspects of social reality. For example, women might have a clearer understanding of gender relations than men because they experience gender-based oppression directly.

Standpoint as an Achievement: A standpoint is not simply given by one's social position but must be actively achieved through reflection, consciousness-raising, and collective struggle. This process involves critically examining and interpreting one's experiences within the broader social and political context.

Power and Knowledge: Standpoint theory emphasizes the relationship between power and knowledge production. It argues that dominant groups often shape what is considered legitimate knowledge, thereby marginalizing alternative perspectives that challenge the status quo.

Intersectionality: The philosophy of standpoint often intersects with intersectional theory, which recognizes that people experience oppression and privilege in multiple, overlapping ways (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality). Thus, standpoint theory takes into account the complexity of identity and how it influences one's perspective.

The philosophy of standpoint challenges traditional notions of objectivity and universal knowledge by asserting that our social positions deeply influence how we perceive and understand the world. By recognizing and valuing the perspectives of marginalized groups, standpoint theory seeks to expose and address systemic inequalities in knowledge production and societal structures. It invites a more inclusive and reflective approach to understanding social reality, where diverse voices are heard and respected.

[brotherabhishek]

Amongst Thermometers

[recklessfuture001]

Why is there so much pain in this world? It is strange when you get to thinking about it.

It seems that we shouldn't have to hurt so much. So many things could be better, and when I have expressed this in the past, there are people who seem to get offended by it. That changing anything about the horror of all this is taboo somehow.

Or that changing anything is just an idealistic dream. Sure, there will always be pain in the world, I think. There will always be hurt and abusive people that know how to operate between the cracks. However, there is so much that seems could be done to make things better. Bad things are just allowed to proliferate within this system. So much of this current mode of production feeds off of human suffering that it boggles the mind that you could call this anywhere close to a democracy. Policies that are vastly unpopular with the majority of people are made into law without much of a fight from anyone that we are told are our representatives.

All the things that were considered public goods in the past not all that long ago are cast aside as more and more are privatized. The poor and the working class have to put up with more and more being taken away and a lower quality of life. When does it stop? When do the people gather their strength as one to not just make the demand, but to assert that certain things just should not be tolerated? Things such as child labor, genocide, exploitation of natural resources for private gain, colonial wars of domination, etc. We don't support these things that our governments do, but they keep on happening anyway.

It helps to not give in to too much pessimism. There have been gains in the past that led to positive outcomes. How do we make things happen that reflect the will and desires of the majority of people. It appears to me that what appears to us through the mediums advancing today are both a blessing and a curse. I worry that it is slowly becoming more and more negative though. How do you approach epistemological certainty in a world where technology is geared more and more towards surveillance, deception, coercion, etc.?

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Helen Pluckrose

Published: May 2, 2023

Yesterday, I wrote about whether or not liberalism has failed or whether we are failing to do liberalism. My contention is that it is the latter. No political/ethical/social/economic philosophy can work if we don’t use it. Currently, there simply aren’t enough people consistently defending freedom of belief and speech, opposing the evaluation of individuals by their race, sex or other immutable characteristics and taking an evidence-based reformist (rather than revolutionary or reactionary) approach to social progress for liberalism to work, either in law or in culture. This seems to be due to many liberals having forgotten how to do this consistently and everybody else not wanting to do it in the first place.

This piece is a continuation of this theme by looking at the question of whether liberalism is the best way to defeat Critical Social Justice (CSJ): AKA wokeism. People raise this very reasonable question with me often. I recently had a very angry American gentleman appear randomly on an Instagram post of mine to ask if I will ever have the honesty to admit that I was 100% wrong to urge Americans liberals not to vote for Donald Trump. After reminding me of my own claim that the liberal left is needed to push back the Critical Social Justice left and then informing me of President Biden’s complicity in the promotion of “gender ideology” and “CRT malarkey” he concludes: “When are you going to admit you were wrong and those on the "extreme alt-right" (but really just normal people who are not stupid) were correct about where this would all go?” He then either blocked me or Instagram blocked him so I was unable to reply. I would have said:

I am not in the habit of calling normal people who are not stupid “the extreme alt-right.” Nor would I put conservatives more generally into this category. I particularly respect liberal conservatives trying to address illiberalism on the right. (Well done on the liberal trajectory towards acceptance of same-sex marriage). Nor do I at all deny that a right-wing party would be less tolerant of Critical Social Justice than a left-wing one. This is because CSJ is an illiberal movement on the left. I have been very open in my criticism of this movement and about this being what liberals on the left currently need to work against particularly strongly when a left-wing party is in power. In the same way, liberals on the right have to address illiberalism in their parties particularly strongly when they are in power.

This is why I can be completely honest and say I still think the GOP is “not the solution for anyone who values science and reason and wants to protect a liberal society that defends freedom of belief and speech and viewpoint diversity as well as rigorous scholarship and consistently ethical activism for genuine racial, gender & LGBT equality.” If that wasn’t what you wanted to protect, I was not addressing you. If it was, then we can oppose authoritarian Critical Social Justice together as a legitimate impediment to it, but do pay attention to all the book banning and conspiracy theorizing coming from the right. For me, all the women who no longer have access to abortion & could die due to actions driven by the Republican party when it wasn’t even in power stand out. If you can avoid being a single issue thinker, you might see why somebody could be unconvinced that the GOP is the party more committed to liberal principles right now, even if you still disagree with them.

Single issue thinking is simply not compatible with liberalism. Even an authoritarian wants to protect the freedom of people who agree with them. Unfortunately, it is quite easy for a liberal to become an authoritarian. As the political scientist, Karen Stenner argues and demonstrates in her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait but can arise in response to a perceived threat. When we feel ourselves to be secure, humans are most tolerant of difference. When we feel ourselves to be in danger, we are the least tolerant. Jonathan Haidt, discussing authoritarianism in relation to nations and drawing on Stenner’s work says:

Countries seem to move in two directions, along two axes: first, as they industrialize, they move away from “traditional values” in which religion, ritual, and deference to authorities are important, and toward “secular rational” values that are more open to change, progress, and social engineering based on rational considerations. Second, as they grow wealthier and more citizens move into the service sector, nations move away from “survival values” emphasizing the economic and physical security found in one’s family, tribe, and other parochial groups, toward “self-expression” or “emancipative values” that emphasize individual rights and protections—not just for oneself, but as a matter of principle, for everyone.

We have many examples of this phenomenon historically when a relatively stable community faces a threat and responds by becoming intolerant of difference. There is no rational reason at all why the arrival of the Black Death in Europe should have resulted in mass persecution of Jews, but it did. “Survival values” came to the fore during a disaster and intensified in-group bias and out-group hostility even though the out-group was not at all responsible for the disaster? On an individual level, this can take the form of ‘radicalisation’ in which the individual is worked upon to induce a sense of fear and danger from, again, an out-group, which can result in dehumanisation and violence.

It is this switch that can be flipped from emancipative (liberal) values to survival values that can make a liberal an authoritarian and I would suggest that ‘single issue thinking’ can also have this effect. Those of us who focus intensely on one kind of cultural problem need to be particularly careful not to flip this switch in ourselves. It is all too easy for somebody who begins studying a particular cultural issue and starts out with liberal principles which they try to apply consistently to become increasingly anxious and convinced that this is the one big threat to society until they are no longer guided by their principles but determined only to defeat this one thing. This phenomenon is often seen in online political commentators and described with the phrase “If you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.”

Today, one of my readers ( a much more thoughtful Dutchman)* commented on the last essay saying that he thought it was a fair empirical question to ask whether liberalism is the most effective way to combat CSJ. I think he is quite right. However, I would quibble a little and say that the exchange of just one word would produce different answers in my mind.

Is liberalism is the most effective way to combat CSJ?

Probably not, no.

Is liberalism the best way to combat CSJ?

Yes, absolutely. It’s essential.

It depends very much on what your primary aim is. If the primary aim is to get rid of CSJ, then pushing it out with another popular illiberal belief system could well be more effective than trying to get a consensus on the 'live and let live' approach of liberalism. If your primary aim is to live in a liberal society I do not see any other way to achieve that than liberalism.

There really are only two ways to deal with any authoritarian movement that has power and prestige in society.

Become more strongly liberal and fully & consistently insist upon people's rights to hold and express their own views and not to have others' imposed on them

Put our strength behind whichever authoritarian belief system we dislike least that also has the potential to squash out the ones we dislike most.

While belief systems vary widely, any that gains the cultural power to make the social rules will ultimately either allow people freedom of belief and speech or it won't. If you have to pretend to hold certain political, religious or philosophical views or pretend not to hold the ones you do hold to avoid material harm to your person or livelihood, it is authoritarian. If you are being “held accountable” to anybody else’s religion, politics or philosophy, rather than just reasonable laws and responsibilities of citizenship that apply to everyone, it it is authoritarian.

Yesterday, I said I will not do the Ibram X. Kendi style argument about liberalism: “You can either be liberal or illiberal. There is no such thing as ‘non-liberal.’ When speaking of a worldview that someone holds it can certainly be non-liberal if it does not share the foundational principles of philosophical liberalism but is not authoritarian in that it does not seek to impose any views on or ban any views of other people. I do not intend to tell anyone who is not an authoritarian that they are a philosophical liberal. They could, for example, be a conservative Christian who does not wish to force anybody else to be one. In this case, their own worldview is not liberal, but their attitude towards the religious freedoms of others is.

When it comes to wielding power to make the social rules and penalise dissent, this really can only go one way or the other depending on whether it does penalise dissent or not. There is no such thing as ‘a little bit authoritarian’ or ‘partial freedom of speech.’ Whenever somebody says “I support freedom of speech but…” followed by something that forbids the expression of certain ideas or justifies penalising people for expressing them, they would do better to say that they believe protecting people from certain ideas is more important than freedom of speech. This is a coherent and arguable ethical position. It is just not a liberal one.

I am belabouring this point because it is central to understanding the significance of the question “Is liberalism the best way to defeat wokeness?” The answer to this comes down to whether you see liberalism as a tool to defang a specific ideology or as an end goal in itself.

Take our hypothetical conservative Christian again and put him in a predominantly Muslim country. It is in his interests then to strive for a liberal government and culture as this will enable him freedom of religion. But is it in his principles? We can find out if we move him to a predominantly Christian country. If he still defends freedom of religion even though it now benefits people who are not him and believe things he must think are wrong, it seems very likely that he sees a liberal society as an end goal in itself. If he does not defend freedom of religion but supports or condones authoritarian Christianity, it is very likely he was using liberalism as a tool in a specific situation and his end goal is primarily a Christian society. Again, this is a coherent and arguable ethical position if he believes Christianity to be better for society than freedom of belief. Again, it is not a liberal one.

It is important to be clear about whether you consider liberalism to be your end goal or whether it is a tool in your arsenal for reaching a different end goal. My impression is discussion is that a significant number of people are not clear about this. If you are somebody who considers yourself liberal and opposes the Critical Social Justice movement and its authoritarianism, do you primarily oppose CSJ or authoritarianism? Do you consistently oppose authoritarianism and consider CSJ to be a current, powerful example of it? Or is your primary goal defanging CSJ specifically so that you might consider a range of options including giving an alternative ideology equivalent power to make the social rules and impose them on people?

Of course, practical reality is not so black and white as this, however principled we may be and however committed to liberalism as an end goal. As discussed above, liberals are quite often forced into a ‘lesser of two evils’ position when it comes to voting when neither party is being particularly liberal and the only alternative is not voting at all. Many seem to feel that we are in a similar position now with cultural movements and that it has come to a ‘lesser of two evils’ choice from which, if obtained, it could be easier to work towards liberalism as an end goal. I see their point but I am holding out and would encourage everybody to hold out. I have been accused by a good friend of taking this to an extreme, but I am pretty sure that I would become authoritarian before it came to the situation he describes. Maybe.

==

Liberalism is what we should be doing anyway. Wokeness or not.

[addressingsophism]

In Defense Of "Anti-Work"

Many people attempt to justify Neo-Calvinist Work Ethic, which is a self-contradicting piece of pseudo-religious dogma stating that all people must work for religious purposes, but not equally. The philosophy also pushes the belief that the wealthy inherited the earth and became wealthy only by way of innate virtue and should only perform unburdened laborless management and collect the majority of the wealth produced by others, and that the poor must perform hard labor and hand the money up the societal ladder to save their souls.

Early Calvinist Work Ethic dogma was used as a justification for serfdom and slavery from the late 1500s (AD) till today. Neo-Calvinist ideology forms much backbone for much of gatekeeping in Western society; as it is related to System Justification, victim-blaming and "societal weeding".

Contrary to current Western common belief, most of the world didn't belive in anything even remotely close to this concept until fairly recently. While serfdom and slavery had existed in pockets and within waxing and waning empires (with various restructuring of labor beliefs and practices), it wasn't part of a universal belief that humans were required to access the resources of the world they were born on solely through repetitious labor associated with pyramid'esque-scheme systems.

In fact the "work week" wasn't invented until the 1800s and the idea of standardization of Brute Capitalism didn't exist until the 1950s (which lead to economic downfalls and crime waves during the 1960s and 1970s).

People often assume that the majority of the world's idea of work and taxes has been standardized for millennia, and pretty much look the same across all of history, but this is simply not true.

---

Side note: The anti-work isn't a movement in opposition to task completion, but in opposition to fallacies associated with ideologies that claim human beings should naturally be treated as machines used for repetitious labor in order to support classist structures and to restrict social and economic mobility.

The current systems aren't about maximizing everyone's potential, nor about focusing on justice and accuracy.

It's simply about creating and maintaining a series of networked exploitation-focused pyramid schemes. This is ensured mostly by way of early indoctrination, and encouraged via peer pressure (pride, shame, etc).

[jensorensen]

Hostile Takeover

With the recent takeover of Twitter by a certain cretin who shall not be named here, the information landscape feels more dominated than ever by far-right conspiratorial garbage while progressives get pushed further to the margins. These guys are the true eliminationists, using money, power, and intimidation to shut down the entire project of civil rights and human rights. Yet in conventional narratives, it's still college kids or powerless people on social media who get scolded for being some sort of authoritarian threat.

If you are able, please consider keeping this work sustainable by subscribing to my weekly newsletter or Patreon.

[mousey-toy]

ive said it before but it bears reiteration: cartesian dualism and the separation and privileging of the mind / soul / spiritual realm over the taken-for-grantedness and perceived baseness of the body / physical / sensory is the greatest spiritual and philosophical red herring of our era

[chicago-geniza]

Gd I'm still thinking about the drugs thing and like. Do I have to read enough about semantic externalism to translate "we live in a society" into terms that would clarify the relevant distinction. Ahhhjjjh. Something about the naive-to-material-and-social-conditions idiom of these analytic people is just calibrated to make me batty, I think. Every day I am discovering new types of guy

[sophiaphile]

"I chose my words carefully and was heard at first in silence, then a widespread murmuring began that swelled into bursts of laughter. Next day an acquaintance told me, 'I'm sorry we laughed McCandless, but to hear you steadily quoting Comte and Huxley and Haeckel in your broad Border dialect was like hearing the Queen opening Parliament in the voice of a Cockney costermonger.'

While speaking I did not know what so greatly amused folk . . . As I reached the door a piercing sound brought me to a stop and struck silence into everyone else. Godwin Baxter was speaking from the gallery. In a shrill drawl . . . he demonstrated how each of the platform speakers had used arguments that undermined all they aimed to prove. He ended by saying '—And those on the platform are the chosen few! The response to the last speaker's sensible argument shows the mental quality of the mass.'

I said, 'Thank you, Baxter,' and left."

—Alasdair Gray, Poor Things: Episodes from the Early Life of Archibald McCandless M.D., Scottish Public Health Officer

[tjeromebaker]

Intersectionality (Key Concepts) | Patricia Hill Collins & Sirma Bilge

The concept of intersectionality has become a central topic in academic and activist circles alike. But what exactly does it mean, and why has it emerged as such a vital lens through which to explore how social inequalities of race, class, gender & sex...

by Patricia Hill Collins (Author), Sirma Bilge (Author)  The concept of intersectionality has become a central topic in academic and activist circles alike. But what exactly does it mean, and why has it emerged as such a vital lens through which to explore how social inequalities of race, class, gender, sexuality, age, ability, and ethnicity shape one another?  In this fully revised and expanded…

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Punk

The philosophy of punk is a distinctive blend of cultural rebellion, DIY ethos, and anti-establishment attitudes. Emerging from the punk rock music scene in the 1970s, punk philosophy has since evolved into a broader subcultural movement that encompasses music, fashion, art, and social commentary. Here's an exploration of the core tenets and influences of punk philosophy:

1. DIY Ethic

At the heart of punk philosophy is the "Do It Yourself" (DIY) ethic. Punk advocates self-sufficiency and creativity without reliance on mainstream institutions or commercial interests. This ethos encourages individuals to create their own music, art, and fashion, often using limited resources. It fosters a sense of empowerment and community, as punks produce and distribute their own records, zines, and merchandise.

2. Anti-Establishment and Rebellion

Punk philosophy is deeply rooted in anti-establishment sentiments. It rejects conventional norms, authority, and societal expectations. Punk often criticizes political systems, corporate greed, and social inequalities. This rebellious stance is reflected in the raw and confrontational style of punk music and the provocative nature of punk fashion, which frequently includes ripped clothing, bold hairstyles, and symbolic accessories like safety pins and leather jackets.

3. Individualism and Authenticity

Punk values individualism and authenticity, championing the idea of being true to oneself. It opposes conformity and encourages people to express their unique identities and beliefs. This focus on personal authenticity often translates into a rejection of polished, commercialized aesthetics in favor of raw, unfiltered expression.

4. Anarchy and Libertarianism

Many punk subcultures are influenced by anarchist and libertarian ideologies. Punk philosophy often promotes the idea of a society without hierarchical structures or authoritarian control. Anarcho-punk, a subgenre of punk, explicitly incorporates anarchist principles, advocating for direct action, mutual aid, and community-based alternatives to state power.

5. Social and Political Activism

Punk philosophy is not only about music and fashion but also about activism and social change. Punk bands and communities frequently address issues such as anti-racism, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmentalism. Punk's activist spirit is evident in its support for grassroots movements, protests, and various forms of direct action.

6. Cultural Innovation and Subversion

Punk is known for its cultural innovation and subversion. It challenges mainstream cultural standards and pushes the boundaries of artistic expression. Punk art, music, and literature often employ satire, irony, and shock value to critique societal norms and provoke thought.

The philosophy of punk is a multifaceted and dynamic ideology that encompasses a wide range of attitudes and practices. At its core, punk is about rejecting conformity, embracing individuality, and striving for authenticity. It promotes a DIY ethic, challenges authority, and seeks to create a more just and equitable society through activism and direct action. Punk's enduring influence can be seen in various cultural and social movements, making it a vital and vibrant part of contemporary philosophy and culture.

[misterparadigm]

Epistemacrology: Lessons Learned at the Scale of Epochs

There are lessons in life that can't be learned in a single lifetime. This is the value that historians place on their field of study. It's also the value that fundamentalist philosophers and theologians place on their faiths. The idea is that there are things about existence which we can only learn in terms of empires, zeitgeists, eras, and epochs, because it takes that long for certain problems to become apparent.

From what I've observed, with each generation the education of existence is rebooted, and very often we view existence through a lens of modernity, limiting our ability to perceive and comprehend the complexity of an epoch problem--only seeing the iceberg tip of that problem as it manifests itself through the limited scope we've chosen as a matter of compulsion and ignorance.

I believe there are three things to blame for the propagation of this issue: cognitive ease (taking the easiest and lowest resolution view of a given concept), conceptual heuristics (simplifications of concepts for ease of comprehension), and what E.P. Thompson called the "enormous condescension of posterity" (the tendency to condescend past people and societies on the misguided principle that their being in the past is proof of lack of civilization, intelligence, or wisdom).

[salroka]

No sarcasm, I love fanfic that you have to read sober.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: D. Abbot, A. Bikfalvi, A.L. Bleske­Rechek, W. Bodmer, P. Boghossian, C.M. Carvalho, J. Ciccolini, J.A. Coyne, J. Gauss, P.M.W. Gill, S. Jitomirskaya, L. Jussim, A.I. Krylov, G.C. Loury, L. Maroja, J.H. McWhorter, S. Moosavi, P. Nayna Schwerdtle, J. Pearl, M.A. Quintanilla­-Tornel, H.F. Schaefer III, P.R. Schreiner, P. Schwerdtfeger, D. Shechtman, M. Shifman, J. Tanzman, B.L. Trout, A. Warshel, and J.D. West.

Published: Apr 28, 2023

Abstract: Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with non­scientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, human­centered approach to address existing social inequalities.

1. Introduction

We live in an incredible time of human history. As Barack Obama said: “If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be—what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you’d be born into . . . you would choose right now.” While the benefits of significant global progress and economic development have not been shared equally, the world as a whole has never been healthier, wealthier, better educated, and in many ways more tolerant and less violent, than it is today.

How did we get here? Science provided solutions to such calamities as famine and plague, transforming them “from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of nature into manageable challenges.” By improving the world economy and increasing global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world. Science eradicated smallpox, discovered penicillin, decoded the SARS­CoV­2 virus in a weekend, helped to halve the maternal and child mortality rate globally, revolutionized agriculture, contributed to extending life expectancy in every country, and has generally granted humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom. By increasing literacy and communication, science has promoted empathy and rational problem­solving, contributing to a global decline in violence of all forms.

Of course, serious problems continue to challenge us; poverty, inequality, wars, and violence persist. Climate change, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic disease threaten global gains made over the past century. However, science continues to be the best tool humanity possesses to address these complex, collective challenges. Indeed, science holds the key to solving these problems—it provides the basis for renewable energy technologies, mitigating anthropogenic impact on the global climate, feeding the world’s growing population, controlling pandemics, and eradicating debilitating diseases. Of course, science alone is not sufficient: science is but a tool that can be used for good and bad. It is our responsibility as a society to use it responsibly, ethically, and effectively.

Fulfilling this responsibility, however, is being hindered by a new, alarming clash between liberal epistemology and identity­based ideologies. Liberal epistemology prizes free and open inquiry, values vigorous discourse and debate, and determines the best scientific ideas by separating those that are true from those that are likely not. The statuses, identities, and demographics of scientists are irrelevant to this great sifting of valid versus invalid ideas.

In contrast, identity-­based ideologies seek to replace these core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice (CSJ), which assert that modern science is “racist,” “patriarchal,” and “colonial,” and a tool of oppression rather than a tool to promote human flourishing and global common good.

In this perspective, we explain the differences between the two epistemologies and argue that meritocracy (grounded in philosophical liberal epistemology), however imperfect, is the best and fairest way to conduct science. We endorse policies to mitigate existing inequalities of opportunities, but explain why CSJ-­based policies are pernicious (CSJ differs from social justice as a concept). Therefore, we offer a liberal, humanistic alternative that is compatible with maximizing scientific advances.

[...]

7. The Way Forward

Science has been the driving force behind unprecedented improvements in the global quality of life—from advances in medical diagnostics and cancer treatment to the information technology revolution, from the growth of agricultural productivity to the development of sustainable energy. Science and technology are global and highly competitive. If dismantling the merit­based practices of the U.S. and other democratic countries continues unabated, the loss of leadership in developing cutting­edge technologies is likely to eventuate.

For science to succeed, it must strive for the non­ideological pursuit of objective truth. Scientists should feel free to pursue political projects in the public sphere as private citizens, but not to inject their personal politics and biases into the scientific endeavor. Maintaining institutional neutrality is also essential for cultivating public trust in science. The rush to create systems institutionalizing racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in college admissions and hiring will further corrode public trust in academia and science (e.g., surveys from the U.S. show that most Americans, including most Americans of color, reject such preferences). Although no system is guaranteed to eliminate all biases, merit­based systems are the best tool to mitigate it. Moreover, they promote social cohesion because they can be observed to maximize fairness.

Admittedly, meritocracy is imperfect. The best and brightest do not always win. But the idea that meritocracy is nothing but a myth is demonstrably false, indeed absurd. Were it but a myth, college admissions and hiring could be conducted without regard to applicants’ qualifications, and students or employees could be selected at random.

The role of science in rectifying social inequalities goes beyond “trickle­down” effects of scientific progress. Science can help to develop programs addressing both the root causes of inequalities and the effectiveness of remedial policies. Recent works by Banerjee and Duflo illustrate how well­founded scientific methodology can narrow the gap between rich and poor countries. Heckman’s work quantifies the impact of pre­school education on students’ success. In the field of artificial intelligence, one of the most active areas of research is concerned with discrimination, fairness, and social accountability. The distinctive features of these examples, setting them apart from CSJ, are that they are based on scientific evidence and logic and they address the root causes of inequalities, rather than their symptomatic manifestations.

There is a large literature in the field of psychology on the role that demographic biases play in how we judge individuals. Such biases are real and a justified concern, but fighting them with opposite biases and undermining merit is counterproductive. Two of the most robust findings in the literature are: (1) people massively judge others on their merits when their merits are clear and salient; and (2) in such situations, stereotypes and implicit biases are minimized. Thus, a sharp focus on merit minimizes bias and maximizes the chances that those who best meet the relevant standards (for admissions, hiring, publication, or anything else) will be rewarded, thereby promoting inclusion. For example, standardized tests can help to fairly evaluate applicants from diverse backgrounds and—if used properly—increase diversity. A strict focus on merit, properly implemented, also reduces the influence of bias, department politics, nepotism, and favoritism, thus facilitating diversity, while maximizing scientific quality and the public’s confidence and trust in the academy and science.

How do we begin the process of depoliticizing science and strengthening merit­-based practices? We offer six concrete suggestions:

Insist that government funding for research be distributed solely on the basis of merit.

Ensure that academic departments and conferences select speakers based on scientific, rather than ideological, considerations.

Ensure that admissions, hiring, and promotion are merit­based and free from ideological tests.

Publish and retract scientific papers on the basis of scientific, not ideological, arguments or due to public pressure.

Require that universities enforce policies protecting academic freedom and freedom of expression, according to best practices promulgated by non­partisan free speech and academic freedom organizations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Insist that university departments and professional societies refrain from issuing statements on social and political issues not relevant to their functioning, as recommended in the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report.

Although much has been written about DEI, the arguments advocating it fall into familiar categories: reparative justice is needed to redress historical discrimination; DEI is necessary to fight current discrimination; and DEI is needed to level the playing field and achieve equal outcomes.

With respect to reparative justice, affirmative action policies are ineffective, arguably unfair, and counterproductive. Although we see no role in science for identity­based policies, we recognize that the playing field is not level. Outreach in admissions and hiring to candidates from less­ advantaged backgrounds is important, not only to promote fairness, but to enlarge the pool of promising candidates. Schools and universities have a role to play in leveling the playing field by uplifting students who have come from more difficult life circumstances, not by imposing quotas or lowering academic standards, but by providing students with opportunities to develop the rigorous skills they need to enter scientific fields, and the support to do so. In this way, merit and diversity become synergistic rather than antagonistic.

Advocates of CSJ approaches to DEI often present the options as if it is either CSJ or bigotry. We reject this false dichotomy. Dismantling or disrupting institutional practices that have produced science’s achievements, and replacing them with untested methods opposed to the Mertonian norms is a dangerous experiment that jeopardizes the future of science.

8. Conclusion

Imbuing science with ideology harms the scientific enterprise and leads to a loss of public trust. If we continue to undermine merit, our universities will become institutions of mediocrity rather than places of creativity and accomplishment, leading to the loss of the competitive edge in technology. Thus, we need to restore our commitment to practices grounded in epistemic humility and the meritocratic, liberal tradition.

We need to be vigilant against the dilution of our merit evaluations by biases, ideology, and nepotism. Moreover, as a community, we should continue to invest in mentoring and education to help people develop their full potential. Adopting the guidelines we have suggested does not mean that we ignore the contributions of past racism and sexism to the inequalities we observe today. It means addressing these issues in a fundamentally positive way—not by introducing diversity metrics into funding or hiring decisions, nor by weakening the standards for university admissions and professional advancement, but by investing in the early pipeline, for example, by strengthening educational outreach and programs to increase access to sustained quality education and early exposure to STEMM.

Scientists must start standing up for the integrity of their fields despite the risk of bullying and verbal attacks; donors and funders should condition their support on non­partisan and rational scientific pursuit. Science as a free pursuit of knowledge untainted by ideological orthodoxies maximally enhances the public good.

9. Afterword

Perhaps the grandest irony of them all, and the saddest commentary on the state of academia, is that this article, defending merit, could only be published in a journal devoted to airing “controversial” ideas. As we were finalizing the manuscript for publication, the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House released a 14­-page long vision statement outlining the priorities for the U.S. STEMM ecosystem. The word “merit” appears nowhere in the document. In February, 2023, The National Academy of Sciences released a report titled “Advancing Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM Organizations: Beyond Broadening Participation.” The report describes merit as a non­objective, “culturally construed” concept used to hide bias and perpetuate privilege, refers to objectivity and meritocracy in STEMM as myths, and calls for merit­-based metrics of evaluation to be dismantled.

==

When merit is a "controversial idea," that needs to be "dismantled," we're through the looking glass.

For anyone who is going to bald-faced lie and insist that "nObOdY iS dOiNg tHiS!" be aware they have a six-page bibliography with 149 citations. Start there, and good luck. And yes, it includes the notorious "Feminist Glaciology" paper.