As I’ve mentioned, the anthology The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss, has gotten some flak from “progressives”. These critics argue that it really should have been a book about how Trump and the Republicans are attacking science rather than a book about how the Left is damaging science. I’m not going to go after that whataboutery again, as I’ve done it before. No one side is immune from criticism, and there are a gazillion people noting, correctly, that Trump is doing rather serious damage to scientific funding right now. But how many people are showing how the leftist ideology is injuring science? QED. (Full disclosure: Luana Maroja and I have a chapter in this book, one that’s a slight revision of one we wrote for The Skeptical Inquirer.)
At any rate, there is now a longish video, featuring Krauss and three authors, with moderator Joshua Katz. Everyone on the panel is listed below in bold. It was based on a discussion held by the American Enterprise Institute, and if you want to damn it because the AEI is a generally conservative venue, damn away, but you’ll be outing yourself as narrow minded. Here are the AEI notes for the discussion that I’ve put below.
On October 2, AEI’s Joshua T. Katz hosted an event to discuss The War on Science, a new volume to which he and several other AEI fellows contributed chapters.
After brief opening remarks from AEI’s M. Anthony Mills, the Origins Project Foundation’s Lawrence M. Krauss, the volume’s editor, delivered a presentation offering historical context for the book and detailing some notable instances of the imposition of ideology on scholarly practices. Each panelist then gave brief overviews of their respective chapters: AEI’s Sally Satel discussed her chapter “Social Justice, MD—Medicine Under Threat”; AEI’s Carole Hooven discussed her chapter “Why I Left Harvard”; and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s Solveig Lucia Gold discussed “An Apology for Philology,” a chapter she coauthored with Dr. Katz.
Following these remarks, the panelists engaged in a discussion moderated by Dr. Katz, and the event concluded with a Q&A, wherein panelists fielded questions from the audience.
Event description
Among assaults on merit-based hiring, the policing of language, the denial of empirical data in medicine and science, and the replacement of well-established standards with ideological mantras, rigorous scholarship is under threat throughout Western institutions. To make matters worse, many who have spoken up against this threat have faced professional consequences, creating a climate of fear that undermines the very foundation of modern research. In The War on Science, the Origins Project Foundation’s Lawrence M. Krauss assembles a group of prominent scholars from wide-ranging disciplines to detail ongoing efforts to impose ideological restrictions on scholarship—and issue a clarion call for change.
Solveig Lucia Gold, Senior Fellow in Education and Society, American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Carole Hooven, Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Lawrence M. Krauss, President, Origins Project Foundation
Sally Satel, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise InstituteModerator:
Joshua T. Katz, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Now I haven’t yet listened to the whole thing, as I cannot abide long podcasts and videos, so I’m going through it person by person. So far I’ve heard Krauss’s nice opening (31 min.), which spares no science-warping ideologue from the Left, giving lots of cringeworthy examples. If you have the patience to listen to a 1.5-hour long discussion all the way through, knock yourself out and comment below.
At 24:30, Krauss gives an extraordinary example of the guidelines issued by the Royal Society of Chemistry to ensure that research publications do not offend anyone.
Offensive content was described as subjective and had to be viewed from the perspective of the recipient, regardless of the intent of the author. And here is a definition of offensive content:
“Any content that could reasonably offend someone on the basis of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, marital or parental status, physical features, national origin, social status or disability.”
So, by this definition, there should be no more publications about evolution, abiogenesis, or even the old age of the Earth and cosmos, as that would reasonably offend many conservative Christians and Muslims and therefore violate the guideline.
I mean seriously, that guideline is so broad that it could be used to shut down any publication on any topic, if one wanted to. Creationists are missing a trick if they aren’t jumping all over this.
Why is this happening? Why is science turning away from rigor and seeking to critically understand the natural world, and instead worrying about “social justice” and not ruffling anyone’s feathers?
That would be awkward 🙂 I wonder if any papers have been rejected on the basis of these criteria: ‘Inappropriate or offensive content’ in https://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/processes-and-policies
One of the principal — perhaps the principal — problems (wow, that was a lot of alliteration) with such a definition is the word “reasonably.” What might “reasonably” offend someone is almost entirely subjective and hardly to be, if I may, reasonably adjudicated.
(Of course, the same word is found in many other legal statutes, such as that defining, at least in some juristictions, when a police officer may use lethal force, i.e. when he can reasonably fear for his life, or some such formulation.)
There is a difference though. The question of whether a cop’s life is threatened does admit an application of reason. The question of whether someone, anyone, rational or not, might feel offended is less amenable to reason. Offense is very much in the eye of the beholder while danger to a cop’s life has some objective criteria.
Reasonableness is a central tenet of the English common law. The reasonable man is a legal fiction that judges appeal to in deciding cases. Judges relying on centuries of experience going back to Greek and Roman times apply the test of reasonableness to the objective facts of the particular case. In law, at least it means something even if means parsing conflicting claims put up by the lawyers on both sides. (For what it does mean, see below.)
Important for us lay people to understand is that no amount of testimony from actual “men on the Clapham omnibus” can determine what is “reasonable”. It is entirely up to the Court itself to construct what this fictional reasonable man would do, and compare that to what the defendant actually did — in your example the police officer who used lethal force on a suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus
See also A P Herbert, an English humorist who wrote extensively about the law, including the duties of the Reasonable Man.
In private settings like censoring offensive speech in scientific journals, reasonableness just means whatever the censor says it means, not a jot more. The censor is taking a legal term and using it in a setting where it has no legal meaning. Like selling gasoline in gallons in Canada where a gallon no longer has any legal meaning and can be any size the seller chooses.
From the cited Wiki (snipped for length):
Good post, Leslie. I recall spending a LOT of time in law school talking/listening to arguments about “reasonableness” – which is kind of a psychological fiction of “what most non-insane people think looks/feels right” – kinda thing.
It is a load bearing wall of our (criminal, and even contract) law systems.
The jury system seeks to find a compromise on this.
“Reasonableness” is a land with fuzzy borders.
D.A.
NYC
OK, I’m not trained in military strategy. But it seems to me that when an army comes after your science funding with tanks and jets, you don’t worry too much about a few boy scouts with pea shooters coming from the opposite direction. Even if they’ve got girl scouts and nonbinary scouts too. Priorities do matter.
I am trained in military strategy, but the field isn’t essential to grasp the point. I would suggest that insurgency can pose a far more difficult fight than an external adversary—no matter how well the latter is armed. It’s rather unpleasant to fight your neighbor, your family, your colleagues, your [former] friends. Who can you trust? Who will betray you? Nor is it clear how to do so without destroying the very things and places you seek to defend. But rallying against those despised people outside your tribe is rather simple. And framing the current war in terms of former wars is an ever-present temptation and often a road to defeat.
The battle for academia is on two fronts. There is no shortage of either courage or effort in countering Trump—nor is there a lack of weapons to do so. But the internal attacks on science, merit, and academic freedom are insidious and began long before Trump became part of the national political conversation—and they will continue when he is gone. You belittle that threat. Fair enough. I’ll let your colleagues either side with you, wring their hands, or disagree. But universities aren’t country clubs for their current inhabitants. Those of us outside who value what they once were—and hope they can be again—also get a vote. We know you want to fight Trump. Do you have any interest in fighting the illiberal elements in your own committees, departments, and administration? What’s your plan to succeed?
Academia has not corrected itself over the last decade. Why? Self-satisfaction? Confusion? Lack of courage? The latter would make it difficult to distinguish friend from foe, hampering reform. Your illiberal insurgents push on, gaining significant ground. Your “peashooters” dictate the culture and rules across much of elite academia—the proving ground for future national leadership. They control many professional associations, academic publishers, credentialing agencies, and the media. An influential swath of the legal profession is theirs. And they largely control one major political party, populated with “leaders” who brook little internal dissent and offer none. Concomitant with the advance of your peashooting brigade is an increased willingness to tolerate violence, to silence speech with which one disagrees, to ruin the lives and reputations of those who dissent to the new and everchanging rules for polite society. Ask Carole Hooven and Joshua Katz why they cried so much from being pelted with mere peas.
It is now entirely unclear whether lost ground in academia can be recaptured without substantial outside assistance. Many of us would greatly prefer an Administration of either party that empowers academic reformers, but who are the mythical people in the universities who would welcome the assistance of the much-hated Right wing? Where are the mythical Democrats in national leadership who would insist on reform? Unfortunately, those now in federal power decided that firebombing is to be preferred over precision strikes. And I must admit, despite the destruction, I am not confident that they are wrong. What I am confident of is that the battle will not be waged at all should the insurgents get a final supportive push from a new Democratic administration. Oh, certainly, you would retain your vaunted academic freedom—in much the same way that wings are legs, too.
Another way to put it is that it is silly to worry about an antibiotic-treatable infection, no matter how unpleasant, if you have a cancer metastasizing within. But one of these is easier to ignore—especially if the patient is blind to the symptoms, avoids personal pain, and has no interest in being screened.
Geez, Doug, that’s good.
Wow. One of the best things I’ve read in a long time. Bravo!
Agreed, excellent comment.
Furthermore, the whataboutery is also saying “Why did you write a book about a threat to the entire western world instead of a book about US domestic politics?”.
Doug, you’re a beautiful writer. Thank you for expressing my thoughts and feelings more clearly and persuasively than I could have. What you wrote resonated on many levels—especially this:
“It’s rather unpleasant to fight your neighbor, your family, your colleagues, your [former] friends. Who can you trust? Who will betray you? Nor is it clear how to do so without destroying the very things and places you seek to defend.”
It’s relatively easy for people inside Harvard (or outside, I suppose) who still have their jobs, friends, and reputations to tell people like me—who continue to criticize Harvard—that I’m undermining our ability to fight the “real enemy,” etc. But when you’ve served your own side with devotion, then been betrayed and grievously injured by those same people, you have a different sense of where the threat originates and how to allocate your resources to confront it.
I hope we all share the goal of restoring the university to a place where the pursuit of knowledge is the top priority. Of course we’ve got to vigorously confront the extremes of Trump’s attacks, but I’m frustrated by the continued infighting and what I see as an inadequate focus on internal issues.
You should publish your reply somewhere! If not, may I tweet it? I’m at hooven@fas.harvard.edu if you want to get in touch.
You’re omnipresent Prof Hooven. I’m just now listening to your talk at AEI, and your book is right next to me on my desk.(Another copy of which I bought for a friend I’m feuding with).
Now in the comments at WEIT – my safe space for my own loudmouthery!
…and …. I couldn’t be stalked by a better person. 😉
Cheers!
D.A.
NYC
@DavidandersonJd
Thank you for the stalking compliment and the bump in my book sales! Hope the double dose of T helps.
Absolutely! So well stated.
Thanks for posting this, Jerry.
I guess you think we shouldn’t have published that anthology, then, even though it started LONG before Trump planned his assault on science.
I’m wondering what you would have us do: withdraw publication.
I think Doug’s comments are apposite here.
Well I watched the whole thing and the time went by very quickly. A good deal of sense, and a nice spread of contributors (I did not expect a classicist!)
It’s all too easy for those who would defend the DEI-fication of science to assume the book is pro-Trump, but if it was completed last November it must have been started long before Trump won his second term.
At the end of the discussion, Sally Satel mentioned curriculum and how loose the requirements have become. I was a liberal arts major and looking back at my education, I see many areas of weakness due to the inordinate amount of freedom the Uni afforded us in creating our own course of study within our chosen major. I saw it as a boon at the time but wish I had been required to read “certain works” or covered “certain periods” that, at that young age, I chose to forgo. And this was in the early to middle ’80s! I could have benefited from more stringent parameters.
I’ve seen many reactions to this book, and it mostly boils down to “cranky scientists in their ivory tower”, because people confront its content to the whole Trump cluster f*ck and associated harms done to various groups… To many, the book’s content pales in comparison – if seen as real at all to begin with.