This one is for @Eddie:
Can you try for shorter thread titles.
I see this as partly a result of areas in the humanities attempting to emulate the professional standards of the sciences. Or, in simpler terms, there is too much “physics envy”.
Thanks to Patrick for his link. For once, I agree with Coyne.
Coyne says many reasonable things. This article is very good though.
It has become that the mutual held universities are used for wicked left wing agendas etc to put identities and raise others up. its invasion,. its breaking the social contract and is everywhere and the democratic part is its political force. thats why the democratic party is literally illegal.
Evil times for True Amerixans and especially the men and so on.
Hey, I am one of those Northeast liberal elites, ala Robert Kennedy social liberalism. You gotta problem with that … I got your Fundamentalist Christian social contract right here -
The conclusion that politics has trumped truth in this matter is true, but maybe simplistic. It’s not news that political commitment is seen as a controlling principle for truth, and not only in just the social sciences.
For decades, for example, many of those in fields like history, lauding itself on its scientific approach rather than trust in old authorities, were avowed Marxists and wrote their history from that vantage point. My relative, a retired historian of Russia who sat outside that leftist domination of her field, says that since the fall of the Soviet Union, most of the English language history of Russia is obsolete, because the ideology has collapsed.
But even Stephen Jay Gould, only half-jestingly, said that his Marxism might be responsible for his devising a “revolutionary” theory of punctuated equilibria against the more capitalist laissez-faire theory of Darwin.
In the present climate, it seems the so-called “grievance studies” do stem from the left, in the form of postmodernists like Foucault, whose “queer theory” and similar propositions interpret all human reality in terms of power structures, and specifically in the identification of “privileged - oppressed” polarities needing to be corrected.
Once you start to see the world that way, there’s no end to it, because absolutely every inequality becomes an injustice, from kids privileged by having surnames near the beginning of the alphabet to man unfairly not being God. I heard a happily-married woman on the radio a few weeks ago interpreting the whole of her relationship in terms of gaining and losing power from or to her husband.
My guess is that simply by identifying such real inequalities, the fake papers ticked the boxes by reinforcing the theory, which is the axiom as real to those branches of the social sciences as methodological naturalism is to physical science.
It would make sense that history of the soviet became worthless after the fall because they were worthless histories period. they were, as in N america today, just propaganda to persuade people to ideological conclusions. in fact there is very little history done in n america today. britain has it despite being also crazy left wing. for some reason but maybe its too important to be misused.
Gould’s theory was only a corection and not revolutionary. being marxist was dumb and most of his ideas were dumb. jUst a welcome correction was useful for creationists.
the evolutionists today never talk about him because, i think, he ruined evolution by showing the fossil recortd showed no evolution.