By Professor
Doom
“But there are no peer reviewed papers disputing global warming.”
20ish years ago, when global warming was
being crammed down our throats every day, the above was often cited as “proof”
that climate warming was real. Climategate 1.0 exposed the reason for the lack
of such studies was because pressure was being placed on journals not to
publish such studies.
“95% of published research on this
drug shows it to be quite effective.”
In a similar vein, medical research, even
“peer reviewed” research, is a little suspect, especially when statistics are
given in a vacuum. Yes, the published research might overwhelmingly show a drug
is effective, but…studies which get results are vastly more likely to get
published. A study which says “the drug does nothing” just isn’t as likely to
be worth the trouble of publishing. So, you can have 20 studies which shows a
drug worked, 19 of which get published (and believe you me, the drug companies
can influence this decision). You can also have 100 studies showing the drug is
useless, and only one of those gets published through sheer luck.
The end result? 83% of studies show the
drug is useless (i.e., 100 of 120 studies), but all a reader can glean from looking at journals is that,
yes, 95% of published studies say the drug works. You better believe this can
warp decision making.
Much of higher ed has been infested with a
demented ideology. A big part of the dogma of the ideology is “men and women
are exactly the same (unless it’s a woman making the accusation, because women
are always perfectly correct about that).”
Perhaps my adding the parenthetical
clarification was gratuitous, but the fact remains that these ideologues simply
cannot abide any facts which conflict with ideology. Since ideology can’t be
changed, what to do about those pesky facts?
The title is actually a pretty good
summary, but the first paragraph clarifies:
The
European nuclear research center known as CERN has banned Professor Alessandro
Strumia of Pisa University after he gave a slide presentation at a conference
that discussed male/female differences in career outcomes in the field of
physics.
Physics is one of
those fields where gender differences are obvious to anyone with eyeballs
(perhaps “bodybuilding” is the only field where it’s even more obvious there
are differences between males and females). The vast bulk of grad students in
physics are male, and by extension the vast bulk of Ph.D.s in Physics are held
by males.
Trouble is, the
ideology demands you only hire males if there are no females available…and this
situation comes up very quickly in Physics. Rather than adjust the ideology to
allow for reality, the push has been to make it easier for a female to get a
Ph.D. in Physics.
Professor
Strumia’s presentation — which is archived here — was removed from CERN’s website, and the center issued a statement
calling it “highly offensive” and “unacceptable.”
Ok, so the paper is “offensive” and
“unacceptable.” Um, that’s not saying the paper is false. They’re not banning
this guy because his science is bad…they’re banning him because they don’t like
the truths he revealed.
Professor
Strumia criticized the “mainstream” theory — i.e., that the lack of equality (“symmetry”)
between men and women in the field of physics is due to sexist bias — calling
it “cultural Marxism.” He cited evidence that, in attempting to create greater
opportunities for women, the field has in recent years begun discriminating
against male scientists. He cited research showing that apparently natural
differences between men and women’s interests “play a critical role in gendered
occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.”
There he goes with facts and data, damn
his hide.
By the
way, I was tipped to this story by a Ph.D. physicist who wishes to remain
anonymous. Heretics everywhere fear the Inquisition.
Much like with global warming, scientists
get the message that speaking out against the ideology will have repercussions
more than powerful enough to end a career. We probably should ask questions
when even Physics fears to point out obvious features of the real world…it’s
what Physics is supposed to do, after all.
This squelching of knowledge is not a
one-time event:
The above discusses something even more
monstrous: the paper was published, then retroactively un-published due to
complaints. This has never happened before, for good reason: the author’s
research is officially damned. Had the paper been rejected, they could try to
publish the knowledge elsewhere, or simply release it to the ‘net for free. But
by publishing/unpublishing, the research is effectively buried.
It’s worse than the Memory Hole—the information
cannot even be replicated accidentally, as that would lead to a copyright issue
and re-burying. This. Is. Obscene.
What horrible thing did the paper report?
In the
highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability
Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among
men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century
found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species,
there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same
species throughout the animal kingdom.
The above concept has been known for
years, the paper simply addressed WHY this is the case.
“In pretty much everything, males
have greater variance. So, if you meet a moron, you’ve most likely met a male.
I could equivalently say that if you meet a genius, you’ve most like met a
male, but I cannot say that because it’s sexist, even if just as true.”
--The above is how I address GMVH in
my statistics courses.
So, the researchers put together a paper
addressing why we see what we see with our own eyeballs every day. A
controversial topic, to be sure, but a mathematics journal editor decided it
was worthwhile:
“I am
happy to stir up controversy and few topics generate more than this one. After
the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they
were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all
views be heard, and providing links to them.”
--of course they never read the book,
ideology requires ignorance of “alternative” facts.
After the
paper was accepted came a long list of pre-emptive attacks. One huge standout:
…the
National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment of NSF
funding be removed from our paper with immediate effect. I was astonished. I
had never before heard of the NSF requesting removal of acknowledgement of
funding for any reason. On the contrary, they are usually delighted to have
public recognition of their support for science.
Wow, the NSF is officially
terrified of learning facts which run counter to ideology. How can one not be
skeptical of science under these circumstances?
So, years from now, when ideologues chant
how there is no peer reviewed published work saying there’s a difference
between males and females…I ask the gentle reader to recall that the reason for
this has nothing to do with the lack of publications.
(For what it's worth, I write many blog posts weeks in advance; it's been days since I've been up to anything beyond a quick note.)
No comments:
Post a Comment