Here is the context for this thread:
We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively.
“If you believe that
government has no right to intrude upon the exercise of your individual will, that you have a moral duty to be virtuous, that human beings are capable of bettering the world through the use of reason, you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”
The Left/Democrats/Progressives have pretty much ended the impact of religion…..and now they are doing the same with science: they plan to end it in the name of diversity and inclusion.
1.I have usually formulated the difference between the Left and the Right as being based on the primacy of
the collective, versus the individual. The Founders, and conservatives today, choosing the latter. But an interesting essay by the brilliant Heather MacDonald presents this conundrum:
is there any future for Western Civilization if we no longer strive for excellence?
2. In
“Unscientific Method,” Scientific Merit and the "Equity" Cult | City Journal MacDonald relates the story of a scientist whose work was ‘erased’ because it
valued merit over diversity.
“…astronomer John Kormendy withdrew an article from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), after a preprint version that he had just posted on the web drew sharp criticism for threatening the conduct of “inclusive” science. … the preprint version was
scrubbed as well (though a PDF can still be found
here.)
3. What was so hurtful in his article? Kormendy had
aimed to reduce the role of individual subjectivity in scientific hiring and tenure decisions. He created a model that predicted a scientist’s long-term research impact from the citation history of his early publications. He tested the results of his model against a panel of 22 prestigious astronomers, many of whom had advised the federal government on scientific research priorities and had served as jurors on high-profile astronomy prizes. That panel rated the research impact of the 512 astronomers whom Kormendy had run through his model; the panel’s conclusions closely matched the model’s results.
4. In 2021, a different standard for evaluating ideas applies: Do they help or hinder
females and underrepresented minorities in STEM? Kormendy’s model, tweeted an astrophysicist at the City University of New York, “JUST TOOK ANY TINY STEPS WE ARE MAKING TOWARDS EQUITY AND THREW THEM OUT OF THE WINDOW” (capitalization in the original). An astronomer in Budapest objected that Kormendy had failed to consult with “relevant humanities experts” about cumulative bias against females and minorities.
5. But that non-representation was exactly the point—
scientific expertise is not democratic.”
One can only wonder if Democrat voters have ever considered that their vote constitutes agreement with the idea that gender or skin color should determine which members of the science community should advance, and why.
And....can we still refer to the endeavor as 'science'????
And where any of those voters taken aback in 2009 when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on the basis of skin color?
www.nysun.com
www.wnd.com
www.nature.com
www.medicalnewstoday.com
journals.lww.com
bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com
