Category: Science

My article in Quillette: “Can art convey truth?”

December 26, 2025 • 10:05 am

Last June I went to the Heterodox Academy’s annual meeting, this time in Brooklyn, New York. I had been asked to be on a panel, “The Duties & Responsibilities of Scholars”, which included, besides me, Jennifer Frey, Louis Menand, and John McWhorter.  The introductions were by Alice Dreger and Coleeen Eren.

I knew of two of the panelists—Menand (a Harvard professor of English, distinguished author, and writer for the New Yorker), and McWhorter, (a Columbia University linguist, writer, and columnist for the NYT who’s been featured regularly on this site).  That was enough to intimidate me, so I spent several months reading about the topic beforehand, concentrating on academic freedom and freedom of expression.  Some of my thinking on these topics was worked out in posts on this site that you might have read. Along the way, I realized that the “clash of ideas” that is touted as essential (indeed, perhaps sufficient) to guarantee the appearance of truth, does not produce any kind of “truth”. (This clash, discussed by John Stuart Mill and Oliver Wendell Holmes, is often said to be the reason why we need freedom of speech.) But the clash doesn’t home in on truth unless you put into the mix some empirical evidence, essential for finding the “propositional truths” defined in my article below.

That led to my realization that the purpose of universities stated by many people is incomplete. As I say in my new Quillette piece (click on the screenshot below, or find it archived here):

Likewise, the common claim that the most important purpose of colleges and universities is to expand, preserve, and promulgate new knowledge—to find consensus truths—is also wrong. Finding truth is not the purpose of the literary arts like literature and poetry, the visual and graphic arts like film, painting, animation, photography, and the performing arts like theatre, dance, and music. These fields cannot find truth because that is not why they exist nor why they are taught. (Other areas like economics and sociology, often considered part of “the humanities,” can find truth insofar as they engage in empirical study of reality.)

It’s not just art that can’t find truth without evidence, but also philosophy. (I won’t deal with math here, as I’m still thinking that one over). I don’t deal with philosophy in the article, but I haven’t yet found an example of philosophy coming up with a testable propositional truth without dragging in empirical evidence.  But this doesn’t mean I think that philosophy (or the humanities in general) shouldn’t be taught in college. As I say in my piece:

First I should address the anti-art bigot charge. Just because I see art as a source of something other than the kind of truth uncovered by science does not for a moment mean I’m dismissive of art. My undergraduate education included courses in Greek tragedy, Old English (I can still read Beowulf in the original), modern literature, ethical philosophy, and fine arts, creating in me a desire to keep learning, to keep being inspired, to keep discovering art. I have derived and continue to derive extraordinary pleasure and betterment from art and other branches of the humanities. Science gave me a career, but the arts have given me at least as much in life as science has. But what I’ve gained from art has not been truth.

The rest of the piece, which I won’t expend on as you can read it at the link below (you might have to give Quillette your email address, but you can accces it for free) explains, at least implicitly, why I still think that the humanities (which includes all forms of art) should be taught in schools, for the purpose of such instruction, while not finding truth, is to give us a hunger to expand our experience.  One more sentence:

Finding truth is not the purpose of the literary arts like literature and poetry, the visual and graphic arts like film, painting, animation, photography, and the performing arts like theatre, dance, and music. These fields cannot find truth because that is not why they exist nor why they are taught. (Other areas like economics and sociology, often considered part of “the humanities,” can find truth insofar as they engage in empirical study of reality.)

. . . The real value of art, then, is not that it conveys knowledge that can’t be acquired in other ways, but that it produces emotional and cognitive effects on the receiver, usually conferring an experience of beauty. Art can enrich how we think about ourselves and other people, and, crucially, allow us to view the world through eyes other than our own. Through reflection, this expansion of experience can enhance our knowledge of ourselves. But that is subjective rather than propositional knowledge.

I showed this piece to a friend this morning, who asked me this: “Your argument is basically ‘the humanities have other uses so we need to keep them in universities.’ So it begs the question — why should they be housed in universities? You seem to suggest the answer is because it makes people feel and think in other ways. Is that kind of personal development something university resources should be dedicated to? A lot of administrators and politicians these days answer no.”

But my answer is “yes“. As I wrote her:

Yes, you ask a good question and I should have answered it. It’s sort of implicit in the piece when I relate how much I’ve benefited from learning about the arts personally, and that is from the arts (literature, etc.) having awakened my desire to learn more. The arts are one of the great areas of human endeavor, and for that alone should be taught in universities.  As I said, it sparks the desire to think about oneself, or learn other perspectives, and while that’s not truth in the scientific sense, it should be taught for that alone.  Ditto philosophy. Ethical philosophy was an important course I took in college, and without that I wouldn’t know about the history of people’s ideas on morality, even though morality turns out to be subjective.
In the end, I think that colleges should stay the way they are, save for the elimination of teaching religious dicta, as in some divinity schools, and that the purpose of a college education is more than just the expansion, production, preservation, and promulgation of (propositional) knowledge.  Why AREN’T universities the place for absorbing the artistic endeavors of humanities? Where else would you learn about it?

And I added that philosophy, which I still don’t think can find truth on its own, is one of the most valuable tools we have for sorting out dreck in arguments, and helping us home in on the truths by thinking logically. Ethical philosophy, in particular, was important to me as it made me think about exactly why I thought things were moral or immoral, and why—a quest I’m still on. So of course philosophy should stay in the college curriculum. The only thing that should be eliminated is the teaching of religious dogma (as opposed to the history and content of religion), dogma that is often promulgated in divinity schools.

The video discussion above is long: 75 minutes, but if you want to listen to the bit on truth in humanities, and see McWhorter and Menand try to tar and feather me, start about 22 minutes in and listen for about six minutes.  It’s in that section that I think McWhorter made an admission that undercut both his and Menand’s argument—an admission I note in the last paragraph of my Quillette piece:

Curiously, I think that perhaps my art-isn’t-truth stance is not as extreme and unreasonable as my eye-rolling, shoulder-shrugging friends in the humanities imply. As I mentioned, at the Heterodox Academy panel Menand and McWhorter were the eye-rollers and shoulder-shruggers, but I see that they too have run up against the objective/subjective issue in their own thinking.   For example, in an exchange about whether Leonard Bernstein’s symphonies are greater than his musicals, McWhorter wound up admitting, “There is no truth: it’s a matter of informed opinion and opinion on what you have decided you value in art.” Agreed!

McWhorter makes his claim starting at 27:55.  You don’t have to watch the video, but do read the piece, which at about 2000 words is short.

Three Royal Societies abandon their mission to promote global and universalist science

December 1, 2025 • 10:15 am

A Kiwi who wishes to remain anonymous (of course) sent me this link to an announcement of a meeting of three Royal (Scientific) Societies: those of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. The screenshot below also links to two other short documents, a communiqué and a statement by the Presidents of all three Societies.

The object is severalfold: to eliminate “structural racism” and inequities in science, to tout “indigenous knowledge systems” as not only different and distinct from normal science, but as having contributed valuable knowledge to science in unique indigenous ways, and to assert that indigenous people have a right to “maintain, protect, and develop indigenous knowledge systems, intellectual property, and data.”

Click below (or above) to access the three statements.

The things I agree with are these:

a.) Members of ethnic minorities have surely been discriminated against in the past, and have had difficulty entering into modern (sometimes called “Western”) science

b.) There should be outreach, expanding opportunities for anyone who wants to do science to have a chance to participate

c.) “Indigenous knowledge”, insofar as it tells us something true about the universe, is indeed a part of modern science and should be considered thus

d.)  Any research done using the resources of indigenous people should be done with their permission, collaboration, and full participation

The things I question are these:

a.) Whether structural racism—meaning formalized practices or policies—are still in place preventing minorities in all three countries from doing science. Other words are “bias” or “bigotry”. In the U.S., universities are bending over backwards to recruit minorities, and I can’t think of an example of formalized bias, though of course some non-minority scientists will be bigoted (I’ve also not seen many of them).

b.)  The extent to which indigenous knowledge has contributed to modern science.  It’s telling that, as in nearly all such documents, these three tout this knowledge as invaluable, but don’t provide a single example of the kind of advances that indigenous knowledge have promoted.

And the things I take issue with are these:

a.) Indigenous knowledge is a form of “knowledge” separate and distinct from that produced by modern science. As I’ve argued repeatedly, many forms of indigenous knowledge involve things that are nonscientific in the modern sense.  For example, Mātauranga Māori (“MM”)from New Zeland is described by Wikipedia this way:

Mātauranga (literally Māori knowledge) is a modern term for the traditional knowledge of the Māori people of New Zealand Māori traditional knowledge is multi-disciplinary and holistic, and there is considerable overlap between concepts. It includes environmental stewardship and economic development, with the purpose of preserving Māori culture and improving the quality of life of the Māori people over time.

MM includes not only practical knowledge, like how to catch eels or harvest mussels, but also superstition, word of mouth, tradition, religion, and codes of behavior. Some of it is knowledge in the “justified true belief” sense, but a lot of it is not.  Those who know more about Australian and Canadian indigenous “ways of knowing” can weigh in here.  And none of this comports with modern science in terms of using pervasive doubt, hypothesis testing, experiments, statistics, and the whole armamentarium that is the toolkit of modern science, which stopped being “Western” a long time ago. Modern science is practiced pretty much the same way the world over.

b). While indigenous people can surely design experiments and publish their data, they do not have control over it in the sense of not allowing other people to use it, or refusing to give the primary data behind anything that’s published. While the present document doesn’t say this explicitly, it implies it, and other indigenous people in New Zealand have more explicitly that data are proprietary.

Here are a few quotes from the three documents linked above (direct quotes are indented; my own comments are flush left):

A description of the meeting:

Over 3 days of keynote speeches, wānanga, cultural activities, and panel discussions, top Māori and Pasifika thought-leaders engaged with First Nations experts from Canada and Australia, including Fellows from five of Australia’s learned academies.

Key themes included the need to dismantle academic barriers and inequities for Indigenous students and researchers, share decision-making about research practices and priorities, and shape research agendas to focus on Indigenous knowledges and address challenges that are important to Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders talked about their experiences in academia, and presented research ranging from the study of Indigenous histories, cultures, knowledges, and languages to environmental management and traditional legal systems.

Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders have championed and led education and research by, with, and for Indigenous communities, and have revitalised interest and awareness in traditional knowledges through language, cultural activities, and creative arts. Their work has explored and built on Indigenous knowledge systems to generate new insights and innovations – such as research methodologies and ethical frameworks based on traditional worldviews and values.

The advances touted for indigenous knowledge (note the absence of examples and yet the assertion that indigenous knowledge systems are separate and distinct “ways of knowing”). Bolding is mine:

 The Taikura Summit has continued and built on those exchanges, and we have now learned of the achievements and experiences of hundreds of Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders. 

We have heard more about their journeys and achievements, and some of the myriad ways in which they are advancing understanding, particularly in the study of Indigenous histories, cultures, knowledges, and languages. These scholars and knowledge-holders have shown intellectual leadership by practising and advocating for research and education by, with, and for Indigenous communities. They have revitalised interest and awareness in Indigenous knowledge systems by connecting people through cultural activities, creative arts, and languages. 

Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders have pioneered research practices, methodologies, and ethical frameworks, grounded in traditional worldviews and values, that uplift different ways of looking at challenges and have reshaped research practices across disciplines. Their work has shown that Indigenous knowledge systems are not simply historical artefacts, but living bodies of understanding that continue to evolve and to generate new insights. 

From the Communiqué (bolding mine):

 The Summit recognises that Indigenous Peoples are the rightful leaders, authorities, and stewards of research concerning their communities, territories, and knowledges. Indigenous research is grounded in distinct systems of knowledge, practice, and ethics that have sustained societies and ecosystems for millennia. These knowledge systems, sciences and artistic forms constitute rigorous and essential ways of knowing and understanding the world. They are not supplementary to other science methodologies. They have their own integrity and value. 

Note the clear statement that indigenous knowledge systems are “rigorous and essential ways of knowing and understanding the world” and “are not supplementary to other science methodologies.” This says that indigenous ways of knowing cannot simply fuse with science into a general understanding of the universe.  But indigenous ways of knowing, insofar as they incorporate anecdotal or observational evidence, are already fuse-able with modern science. It’s all part of understanding our universe.

Finally, also from the Commuiqué:

We acknowledge the enduring impacts of research practices that have marginalised, misrepresented, or appropriated Indigenous knowledge. Correcting these legacies requires fundamental transformation within institutes of higher learning and learned academies. This includes:

• addressing structural racism and inequities, including for Indigenous people with diverse sexual orientations or gender identities,

• affirming the sovereign right of Indigenous Peoples to determine their own research priorities, methodologies, and outcomes, and

• enabling Indigenous Peoples to maintain, protect, and develop Indigenous knowledge systems, intellectual property, and data.

This part involves questionable assertions, such as that about structural racism, as well as an implication—and I may be wrong here—that the products of indigenous science belong to the indigenous people.  But one thing is for sure, nobody can control the outcome of their “research methodologies”, for you don’t do research if you already have determined its outcome.

So Canada and Australia have bought into the “other ways of knowing” mentality that’s long pervaded New Zealand.

I’ll give a few quotes from my anonymous Kiwi correspondent:

I think these statements have thrown science under the bus in all three countries. If our RSTA [Royal Society of New Zealand] still retained any credibility it’s lost it now. How can you make a blanket statement about indigenous knowledge being as rigorous as other “ways of understanding” when it spans everything from empirically verifiable knowledge to superstition? This legitimises any form of quackery or snake oil provided it’s sold under a banner of cultural authority – there are no standards of universal evidence.
I’m hoping that this will lead to change in RSTA, but Canada and Australia now have the same problem! All three scientific associations have abandoned their statutory claim to leadership and  responsibility for global and universalist science.
. . . It is appalling. Probably the worst thing for me is that it says to indigenous people that they have to choose between their culture and science. That we’ve got here is because relativist ideology has been used as a Trojan Horse to smuggle non-science into science. I see no difference between this and the separation between religion and science. Religion is also culture, and biblical creationism can equally be portrayed as a “way of understanding”. What’s lost is the epistemological distinctiveness of science.
The point is not that indigenous knowledge is all myth and superstition. It’s not. But if the products of different “ways of understanding” are only legitimately viewed through their own “cultural” lens then everything devolves into a political battle – a Foucauldian universe. I think at its heart this is activist politics, and so-called science leaders have fallen for it.
Well, read above and judge for yourself. What science and scientists should ensure is that indigenous knowledge, if it’s to be considered a real “way of knowing,” has to comport with the knowledge produced by modern science. We cannot water down science by mixing it with legend, myth, unsupported assertions, or religion. When it comes to science, we cannot indulge in “the authority of the sacred victim.“

Jonathan Kay interviews Lawrence Krauss about our anthology, “The War on Science”

November 10, 2025 • 10:15 am

Here’s a 36-minute interview of Lawrence Krauss by journalist and Quillette editor Jonathan Kay, concentrating on Krauss’s new anthology The War on Science, This book has become somewhat controversial for liberals simply because it blames the Left for some ideological erosion of science at a time when, “progressives” argue, everyone should be going after Trump’s damage to science, not the Left’s.

I consider that criticism misguided.  No political side should be free from criticism because it’s your side. As Krauss says in the video, the book’s chapters represent people from all sorts of disciplines and from all segments of the political spectrum.  Nevertheless, it’s still touted by progressives as a “right-wing attack on science”. (Full disclosure: Luana and I have a reworked version of this paper as one chapter in the anthology.)

Here are the YouTube notes:

Astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss joins Quillette’s Jonathan Kay to discuss his explosive new book, The War on Science, featuring essays from 39 leading scholars—including Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and Sally Satel. In this in-depth conversation, Krauss explains how progressive ideology, DEI mandates, and academic cowardice are threatening the foundations of scientific inquiry in universities across the West. He also addresses the political right’s war on vaccine science and funding cuts under the Trump administration.

Topics discussed:
The ideological capture of science (physics, medicine, anthropology)
DEI in academia and its impact on meritocracy
Free speech and academic freedom in STEM fields
The decline of research funding and long-term risks
Why Krauss believes this is a “two-front war” on science

You can see the book’s table of contents here.

Just two comments. First, I think Krauss mentions my own personal holiday, “Coynezaa” (Dec. 25-30), at 4:30. But he may have been trying to say “Kwanzaa”, which is an ethnic holiday.

Kay is a tough interviewer, and asks Lawrence critical questions like “Why is Jordan Peterson in there?”;  “Isn’t there still discrimination against ethnicities, so why are you going after DEAI?”; or Aren’t we past peak wokeness anyway?”

In my view, the chapters are of variable quality (see, for example’s Peterson’s contribution, which is dire), but there are enough good chapters—most of them—to make the book a valuable contribution. Richard Dawkins’s chapter, for example, is alone worth the price of the book. It’s a shame that it came out when Trump is blackmailing universities about science, but of course we had no idea that would happen. Still, I didn’t anticipate the “whataboutery” we’d receive from progressives.

Bill Maher’s latest “New Rules” (plus bonus video on “The War on Science” anthology)

October 23, 2025 • 9:30 am

In Bill Maher’s latest comedy/politics bit on Real Time —called“F with your algorithm—he calls out people for assuming that because he criticizes the left, he must be a right-winger. This criticism hits home for me, as I’ve been accused of the same thing.  As Maher notes, he’s been criticized for being a right-winger by people who deliberately ignore his criticisms of the right—even though he does that as well, and often.  People don’t like to call attention to things that make them uncomfortable.

One example is our joint anthology, The War on Science, which was attacked for criticizing the left’s erosion of science when in fact many of its authors are liberals. The slant of the book apparently angered some “progressives,” who argued (many without having read the book), that it should have been aimed instead at the right (which also damages science).  My response to these critics is pretty much the same as Maher’s, but this is a family-oriented site so I will simply echo what Maher says at 1:07.

As Maher says, “If you think your job is to tell people what you want to hear, you’re not a journalist—you’re a wedding D.J.”  He gives examples of his own demonization for being a right-winger when, in his piece, he had in fact he’d criticized both right and left. Much of the reportage on Maher’s so-called conservatism (he’s a classical liberal) involves deliberately distorting or truncating his views. Maher may seem a bit defensive, but he deserves to be!

(The guests appear to be Mark Cuban and Andrew Ross Sorkin.)

At the end he analogizes this journalistic tactic  to how websites and devices also type their users, developing algorithms that, as we all know, aim their ad at users who, they think, will bite. His solution? Mess with those computer algorithms by clicking on things that you don’t like or want. That has a side benefit.  You’re a liberal like most of us, start reading conservative sites: that will do you good anyway.

Apropos of Maher’s monologue, we have a new video (below) about The War on Science book, or rather about its thesis. Lawrence Krauss, author of the anthology, says this about the  100-minute video (I haven’t yet watched it):

We’re closing our campaign of interviews and discussions for the book with something special: the official broadcast video of the War on Science Panel Discussion. This was a remarkable event put on as a collaboration between The Origins Project Foundation and the Free Speech Union, their largest ever event in fact, celebrating the book’s launch.

You can now watch the full video, where I was joined by several eminent contributors including Richard Dawkins, Alice Sullivan, John Armstrong, Alan Sokal, and Amy Wax. We debated the causes of, and solutions to, the ideological and political capture we’re witnessing in mathematics, the natural sciences, theoretical physics, medicine, and even government statistics. It was a good-natured but feisty exchange of ideas across political divides, driven by a panel of speakers who care passionately about truth and reason, all chaired by FSU founder Lord Toby Young.

This discussion really captures the core of the entire project: a candid exchange about the very real problems facing science and academia, and a necessary defense of free inquiry and objective truth.

Reader Bat recommended this video in an email:

I am finding it very engaging. I have read the full book of essays and maybe that helps me appreciate the authors’ verbalizing, but in any case I find it to be surprisingly fresh and engaging.  It is nice to have both of the two mathematicians on the panel, and for two reasons: 1. It forewarns people that even math is under serious woke attack; and 2. Both guys give very nice talks of what hogwash the attacks are.

Why it’s not stupid to criticize aspects of leftist ideology that pollute science

October 12, 2025 • 9:30 am

I’m getting tired of virtue-flaunting miscreants who yammer about our anthology The War on Science (Lawrence Krauss, ed.). Their beef?  By and large, the 32 chapters by 39 authors discuss the negative effects of woke ideology on science, effects that come largely from inside science: scientists themselves, journals, publishers, university programs, and so on.  And, of course, nearly all these people are on the left, with many being authoritarian “progressives.” And it just won’t do to criticize science from the left. Don’t you know that Trump, who is bullying many universities and threatening to withdraw science funding unless they meet his agenda, is a far greater danger to science than is the left? Ergo, the left should simply shut up, or use its energies attacking Trump.

As if we haven’t already! Nearly all the authors are liberals who freely admit the damage Trump is doing to science. But we also argue that the “progressive” wing of our ideology is damaging science, and in a way that will last a long time. Further, the book was organized before Trump began his series of orders and bullying of colleges.  But never mind, the critics are, in effect, going after us because, after all only one side at a time should be criticized.  And a lot of people who criticized the book hadn’t even read it: they were going after it based solely on the title and the table of contents, saying that the book is “right wing.” ”

Well, that’s palpably stupid.  And it’s hypcritical. Did you hear these critics raising hell when Obama and Biden threatened to punish colleges that didn’t let trans-identified men compete in women’s sports, or, especially, when these Democrats tried to enforce the clearly unfair rules used by colleges under title IX in adjudicating cases of sexual harassment or assault? Nope, not much noise came from the “progressives”. That’s because the improvement in those standards were mandated by Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Secretary of Education, and we can never, ever admit that anybody in a Trump administration did anything good. Such is the divisiveness in American politics, in which each side totally demonizes the other.

But I digress, for one of my readers has made the points above far more eloquently than I could. You may have read this reader’s arguments already, but I thought they deserved a standalone post.  It involves a pair of comments on a recent post containing the video “A panel of authors from the anthology ‘The War on Science”,  Sure enough, Paul Torek weighed in with a comment like the ones I mention above:

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.

Here, it seems, Torek seems to mean that we shouldn’t have been worrying about what the woke left was doing to science instead of worrying about Trump. (Alternatively, the authors could be interpreted as the ones with pea shooters.) Either way, I thought it was misguided, but even misguided comments get posted if they advance a discussion.

And this was followed by an eloquent response to Torek from one “Doug”:

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.

I’ll add “QED”.

The journal “Evolution” and its sponsoring society aren’t doing so well . . . .

September 2, 2025 • 11:15 am

Since I was a member (and President) of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), it’s become—like many journals—way woke, which you can ascertain by perusing its website.  It’s removed all the awards and prizes named after people who did anything deemed unsavory (e.g., Ronald Fisher), they have Pecksniffs (“Evo Allies“) who roam the meetings searching for “inappropriate behavior,” as if attendees were not adults, they are big time into DEI, even giving out awards for those who promote it best, and, as you’ll recall, they endorsed the idea (along with two other evolution-related societies), that sex is a spectrum, not just in humans but in all animals.

A campaign by several of us, mostly Luana Maroja, gathered names of evolutionists who didn’t agree with the “spectrum” idea, which was presented as if it were a consensus of evolutionists. It is not!  Eventually, the SSE took down this pronouncement, which of course came from ideology rather than biology, saying they’d revisit it some day. They won’t.

One would think that after that embarrassing debacle, the SSE might rethink its ideological strategy and, perhaps, get back to its old mission of promoting meritorious work in evolution instead of promulgating ideology.  But I’m pretty sure they won’t, because this type of virtue signaling is passed on from cohort to cohort.  I’m just putting up this post as a suggestion for the SSE, and, if the past is any guide, they will resolutely ignore it.

One of the members sent me a list of where their journal Evolution ranks among all evolution journals.  It’s in a three-way tie for #21 below (rectangle is mine, click to enlarge). Now I don’t know if this ranking is “normal” among years, as some of the journals at the top are “biggies”, but I was still surprised to see journals that I considered less interesting to be ranked more highly (I won’t name them).  If this position has remained steady, fine. If it’s slipped, well, the SSE might do even more thinking. Regardless, I am embarrassed by the Society that I used to head, and I’m sure they’re embarrassed by me for calling them out (however, in the case of the “sex spectrum” they more or less admitted they screwed up).

But what’s even more embarrassing is that this society is not uniquely woke. At least the journals in my field that I know are all like that.  The College Fix describes the Wokefest that was “the Joint Congress on Evolutionary Biology in late July, which brought together the American Society of Naturalists, European Society for Evolutionary Biology, Society of Systematic Biologists, and Society for the Study of Evolution.”  Have a look at the kind of stuff that permeates these meetings. (Ignore the right-wing slant of that site and just check the ridiculous and almost humorous things they describe.)

This is the kind of ideological erosion of science that has made Americans less trusting of STEMM. And yes, this comes from the Left rather than the Right. Is it worse than what the Right is doing now? Perhaps not, but, as I say, this kind of stuff is more insidious because it comes from within science, and may last a very long time.

The rankings:

 

A discussion revisited: my exchange with Adam Gopnik about science, the humanities, and their ability to produce truth and knowledge

August 12, 2025 • 11:15 am

As I’m reading up on the issue of whether one can find “truth” in the humanities, and, if so, what that truth consists of, I had completely forgotten that four years ago I had an exchange with Adam Gopnik on this very issue. As you may know, Gopnik has been a staff writer for The New Yorker for many years, is a terrific writer, and not only has an expansive knowledge of art, literature, and music, but also knows a lot more about science than the average New Yorker writer.

The exchange was originally written for a column called “Letters”, which was designed to allow people capacious discussions by having two people write (e.g., argue) back and forth, each responding to what the other said in the previous letter.  I found that the exchange I had with Adam is still archived online, and in fact you can see it by clicking on the title below.

Our exchange comprises a series of eight letters, with four from each of us (I start; he finishes).  As you might guess, I gave a “yes” answer to the question below, while Adam defended the humanities as being just as capable of science of producing knowledge.  I’m rereading it now, and was impressed with our exchange. I worked hard on my piece, and Adam defended his views vigorously.

I am not going to summarize it, as it’s long and involved—but not, I hope, tedious.  If you read here you’ll know my views, but Adam’s are pretty much lost to history since they took the Letters page down. Fortunately, I found where it was archived, and you can read our back-and-forth if the question below interests you.