As I mentioned in the last post, after our discussion at the University of Amsterdam was canceled on grounds of Maarten Boudry’s and my sympathies for Israel, the sponsors who brought us to Amsterdam kindly had the discussion restaged in an empty room and professionally filmed. I haven’t listened to the whole 80-minute discussion as I can’t stand to see and hear myself, but as I recall it went smoothly, even without an audience.
The filming and appended notes on the screen are due to videographer David Stam, who did a great and professional job, clarifying any references that aren’t spelled out.
To reiterate, the subject of the discussion was a paper by myself and Luana Maroja published in the Skeptical Inquirer, “The ideological subversion of biology.” If you watch the video, you’ll see that the topic of the war and Israel wasn’t even raised. We did range beyond the ambit of the paper, for we talked about biology, philosophy, and other topics, but you’ll see that we were deplatformed for something we didn’t even intend to mention.
Here are David’s notes on the video:.
Welcome to an eye-opening discussion on “The Ideological Subversion of Science” featuring evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, philosopher of science Maarten Boudry, and embryologist Michael Richardson. In this thought-provoking video, our distinguished panel delves into the growing influence of ideology on scientific research and education. They explore how societal pressures and cultural trends can distort scientific integrity, the implications for scientific progress, and the importance of safeguarding objectivity in the pursuit of knowledge. Join us for a conversation that champions the true spirit of scientific inquiry.
Em. Prof. Dr. Jerry Coyne, Evolutionary Biology at University of Chicago
Dr. Maarten Boudry, Philosopher of Science at University of Ghent
Prof Dr. Michael Richardson, Evolutionary Developmental Zoology at University of Leiden
The moderator, who did an superb job of keeping the discussion going, is Gert Jan van ‘t Land.
[ choir singing ]
Awesome!
Excellent. Thank you.
Thanks boss. I’ve been looking forward to this.
D.A.
NYC
Many thanks, PCC(e), for this terrific discussion, full of unexpected insights. I was particularly impressed by the exchanges about what kinds of knowledge we do (or do not) want to have; and those about the the issue of Indigenous knowledge; and, at the end, by the cheerful agreement about homeopathy’s saving virtue, that of at least being harmless.
+1
Just finished the video and have to think a bit about what and how to say something that adds value. But meanwhile I do want to recognize what an excellent and skilled moderator Gert Jan van’t Land was. Well read in the subject paper, prepared, showing quiet respect for all, and able to keep things moving on a track without rushing anyone.
Indeed! He had a crucial job and did it superbly.
Listening now. This is a great discussion, and is very enjoyable.
A thing that strikes me is how well no-one talks over one another. When I get together with my colleagues that is definitely not the case!
Totally agree with the comments. Great job by all! This is outside of my professional expertise and I learned a lot. I only wish others had been able to see and hear this live at the original venue.
Almost half a century ago, Paul Feyerabend, the “enfant terrible” of philosophy of science, wrote the following, which has become a tenet of the Woke Left (the Postcolonial Postmodern Multicultural Left):
“[S]cience has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it once had to fight.”
“Science is just one of the many ideologies that propel society and it should be treated as such (this statement applies even to the most progressive and most dialectical sections of science).”
(Feyerabend, Paul K. “How to Defend Society against Science.” 1975. Reprinted in Knowledge, Science and Relativism: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 3, edited by John Preston, 181-191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 182+187)
Paul Feyerabend: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/