Category: Science

Is there “truth” to be found in the humanities?

August 3, 2025 • 11:30 am

I pose the question above because, in my readings about freedom of speech and academic freedom, I repeatedly came across two claims:

1.)  Freedom of speech as per the First Amendment is construed by the law as essential for allowing the “clash of ideas” considered necessary to get to the truth.  No idea nor speaker is privileged, and the purpose of the clash in a democracy is to let everyone knows what other people think, and also to let government officials know what the people think.  Note that there seems to be some contradiction here, as clashes of ideas about things like abortion don’t necessarily produce any “truth” if there are religious beliefs or subjective preferences behind those ideas.  There is no clash of ideas, for example, that will produce an answer to the question, “Is abortion immoral?”, but it is still important to have this clash so that elected officials can run the our democracy.

2.) In contrast, the “clash of ideas” in academia is seen as absolutely essential to get at the truth.  Further in academia some people (those with expertise) and some ideas (evolution) are privileged. So, in contrast to public discourse, in which individual views take precedence and there is no a priori meritocracy, academic discourse is meritocratic and somewhat authoritarian.  But in both cases, à la John Stuart Mill and Oliver Wendell Holmes, clashes of ideas are seen as capable and essential in getting at truth.

In the discussion below at the Heterodox Academy in NYC, I riled up some people by claiming that some areas of the humanities, like art, music, or literature, are taught not to arrive at truth but for other reasons (self-reflection, etc.).  (Readers should know by now that I see all humanities as essential components of a good liberal education.)

Now some of what we call “humanities”, like economics and sociology are what i call “quasi-scientific” in that they do use the empirical methods of science and there is are truths that can be gleaned.  Do prices tend to rise, for example, when supply decreases?  But, I maintain, there’s not these kind of truths to be gleaned from art, music, or literature.

What “truth” there is in art, music, literature, and so on, turn out to be empirical truths, like “how accurate is Joyce’s depiction of Dublin in Ulysses?”,  or, as Louis Menand says below about Jackson Pollock, “How did he influence the history of art?”  Yes, those are also questions that could in principole be answered. But you’d be hard pressed to maintain that there is “truth” in theology, or even in philosophy. Philosophy can correct logical errors in our thinking and clarify difficult areas of inquiry, but even philosophers maintain that their mission is not to provide truth.  For example, is pulling the switch in the trolley problem the right thing to do? No clash of ideas can resolve that.  Further, in my view ethics is simply working out the consequences in society of a set of subjective preferences; and if that’s the case there are no ethical “truths”.  You can ask whether “allowing abortion will have effect X on society,” but that is an empirical question and not an ethical one, for it does not say whether abortion is right or wrong. Further, you can determine whether a fetus can survive outside the womb, which may affect one’s opinion about abortion, but that doesn’t tell you whether discarding frozen embryos is wrong.

Below is the the panel discussion in which I riled people up by raising the question: “Is the clash of ideas in non-empirical fields of the humanities—fields like art, literature, and music—designed to produce truth? If so what kind of truth?  This is the question I now pose to readers of this website, and I’m crowdsourcing it as I’m thinking of writing something about this. But it’s a sticky topic.  Just think of it this way: “If you are teaching the history of art, what kind of truth do you claim exists in the paintings of Van Gogh?” (Or any other artist, for that matter.)

The video of the discussion is below (one hour of palaver and 15 minutes of questions.) I wish I had done a better job, but so be it: blame insomnia. Also, remember that I am but a scientist, not a big-gun person in the humanities and public intellectual like John McWhorter or especially Louis Menand, a Harvard professor who writes for the New Yorker. The participants are me, Menand, McWhorter, and Jennifer Frey (Dean of the Honors College andProfessor of Philosophy & Religion at the University of Tulsa).  The moderator was Coleen Aren, Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at William Paterson University, and the person who introduced Coleen was Alice Dreger, well-known author and now senior scholar of the Heterodox Academy.

Our new book on ideological threats to science

July 25, 2025 • 8:15 am

By “our,” I mean a group of 39 essays (and more than 39 people) about how science is being corrupted by the Left.

Now I know what you’re gonna say: the 39 chapters in the book below (find it here on Amazon) deal exclusively with threats to science from the Left but, as we all know, at the moment the threats to science from the Right (aka, the Trump Administration) are far more serious. In the short run that may be the case, but in the long run, well, who knows, but the threats from the Left continue, and that’s for sure. So think of it as a bunch of scientists and other academics analyzing how our trade is being hurt by “progressives.” And, at the time we submitted our manuscripts to editor Lawrence Krauss (who added a nice introdution), Trump hadn’t yet started slicing federal grant money from “bad” universities (I see that Penn and Columbia have just caved).

Luana and I have reworked our Skeptical Inquirer piece, “The Ideological Subversion of Biology” for the book, but there are lots of new and exciting contributions, at least judging by the titles (I’ve been gone and haven’t read most of them).

One that I have read is the introductory piece by Richard Dawkins, a new 33=page essay called “Scientific truth stands above human feelings and politics.”  It’s really, really good. We have Alan “Hoaxer” Sokal writing on “How ideology threatens to corrupt science,” Sally Satel on “Social justice, MD: Medicine under threat,” Carole Hooven on “Why I left Harvard,” Alex Byrne and Moti Gorin on “A deafening silence: bioethics and gender-affirming health care,” Elizabeth Weiss on “Burying science under indigenous religion,” Nicholas Christakis on “Teaching inclusion in a divided world,” Steve Pinker on “A five-point plan to save universities from themselves,” and 31—count them, 31—other essays. If you want to see the state of the art in how progressives ruin science, this is your book. Buy it ($35 hardcover, $17 on Kindle) and curl up in bed with these essays and a glass of sherry.  But wait! There’s more! See below the picture.

The book comes out in only four days, so get yours now. I’m not saying this to sell books; I can’t even remember if we get any remuneration for our contributions, but I don’t care.

UPDATE: I’ve put screenshots of the Table of Contents below”

Krauss is also releasing daily podcasts in the same order as the book’s chapters (sadly, Luana and I didn’t record one).  Below is the first one (one hour) with Richard Dawkins discussing his chapter with Lawrence, and Niall Ferguson’s interview is also up (they may have skipped Alan Sokal as there are 20 podcasts from 31 essays). You can find all the podcasts here.

Although Dawkins is dismissed by a certain group of know-nothings as a “white old man” whose thoughts are irrelevant, his chapter (and the interview) show that he hasn’t missed a lick, even at 84. Would that I could be half that cogent at that age!

The table of contents:

U

UPDATE: As a reader noted (and I predicted), the Great Benighted, which includes the Hateful “Friendly”  Atheist, has gone after the book before it was even issued.  I very strongly doubt that the HA even read the book before he went after it.  So, you know, ignorance.

Another desperate but failed attempt to show that indigenous “science” improves modern science

July 23, 2025 • 11:00 am

This article at The Conversation, by a climatologist at the University of Wellington and a lecturer in design (?) at the University of Auckland, is a desperate attempt to buttress Māori “ways of knowing” by showing how they align with modern science conducted in Antarctica. It is purely performative, meant to sacralize Māori “science,” but in fact adds nothing to modern science. Its only aim is to show that if you twist Māori lore sufficiently, and squint hard enough, you can sort of see some similarities with modern science.

The article is embarrassing and should not have been published in The Conversation. Its appearance can be understood only as an attempt to make up for earlier oppression of indigenous people by overstating their contributions to modern science. This of course is one of the aims of New Zealand’s government, and the article and attendant trip for the authors to Antarctica were in fact paid for by several sources of government support, including the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Marsden fund designed to

. . . drive world-class research in New Zealand by supporting and incentivising excellent researchers to work on their best and boldest ideas leading to new knowledge and skills with the potential for significant downstream impact for New Zealand.

Shoot me now!

UPDATE: I’ve learned that part of the Marsden Fund also supports “Vision Mātauranga” projects designed “to unlock the innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people to assist New Zealanders to create a better future.” I suspect that this is why Winton and Hoeta produced such a misguided paper, extolling Māori knowledge but not giving examples of how it’s informed modern science.

Have a look at the piece and see if excellent research with big potential is described (click on the headline below to read):

First, though authors and government support are shown below:

Now that we’ve determined that the NZ taxpayer is funding this palaver, let’s look at what it’s about. As the beginning shows, it’s merely an “exploration” of how one might comport Māori lore with modern science. There is nothing in the whole piece that shows how Māori lore can add to modern science. All the bolding below is mine:

Antarctica’s patterns of stark seasonal changes, with months of darkness followed by a summer of 24-hour daylight, prompted us to explore how a Māori lunar and environmental calendar (Maramataka) might apply to the continent and help us recognise changes as the climate continues to warm.

As if there aren’t better ways to measure the effects of global warming! Reducation of fixed ice and movement of animals, for example. But let’s proceed:

Maramataka represent an ancient knowledge system using environmental signs (tohu) to impart knowledge about lunar and environmental connections. It traces the mauri (energy flow) between the land (whenua), the ocean (moana) and the sky and atmosphere (rangi), and how people connect to the natural world.

Maramataka are regionally specific. For example, in Manukau, the arrival of godwits from the Arctic indicates seasonal changes that align with the migration of eels moving up the local Puhinui stream.

During matiti muramura, the third summer phase that aligns with the summer solstice, the environment offers tohu that guide seasonal activity. The flowering of pohutukawa is a land sign (tohu o te whenua), the rising of Rehua (Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius) is an atmospheric sign (tohu o te rangi), and sea urchins (kina) are a sea sign (tohu o te moana).

When these signs align, it signals balance in nature and the right time to gather food. But if they are out of sync (such as early flowering or small kina), it means something in the environment (te taiao) is out of balance.

These tohu remind us how deeply land, sea and sky are connected, and why careful observation matters. When they’re out of sync, they call us to pause, observe and adapt in ways that restore natural balance and uphold the mauri of te taiao.

Have a look at the last link to see if there are any practical implications of observing sea urchins and stars and birds. And remember, this is from Antarctica, but the implications are apparently for New Zealand. (Note also the plethora of Māori words, whose presence is irrelevant to nearly all readers but constitute a big sign of virtue for the authors.)

Why on Earth did they go to Antarctica to suss out things to do in New Zealand? No explanation is given, but note that the sentence in bold above denotes not a search for truth, but an “exploration” of how Māori lore might allow things in Antarctica to help people in New Zealand. The connection is still unclear to me.

A bit more “exploration.” Again, this exercise is not to find anything out, but merely to construct metaphors:

One of the key tohu we observed in Antarctica was the mass arrival of Weddell seals outside New Zealand’s Scott Base at the height of summer.

Guided by Maramataka authorities, we explored other local tohu using Hautuu Waka, an ancient framework of weaving and wayfinding to navigate a changing environment. Originally used for navigating vast oceans, wayfinding in this context becomes a metaphor for navigating the complexities of today’s environmental and social challenges.

That is not science, and it’s not even sociology. It’s simply storytelling. And it’s opaque.

Remember, the NZ government sent two researchers to Antarctica (not a cheap proposition) to produce stuff like this:

While the tohu in Antarctica were vastly different from those observed in Aotearoa [JAC: the Māori word for “New Zealand”, untranslated, of course], the energy phases of the Maramataka Moon cycles aligned with traditional stories (pūrākau) describing snow and ice.

We identified some of the 12 different forms of snow recorded by ethnographers, who described them as the “offspring of wind and rain”.

At Scott Base, we observed feather-like snow (hukapuhi) and floating snow (hukarangaranga). Further inland on the high-elevation polar plateau, we found “unseen” snow (hukakoropuku), which is not always visible to the naked eye but felt on the skin, and dust-like snow (hukapunehunehu), akin to diamond dust. The latter phenomenon occurs when air temperatures are cold enough for water vapour to condense directly out of the atmosphere and form tiny ice crystals, which sparkle like diamonds.

In te ao Māori, snow has a genealogy (whakapapa) that connects it to wider systems of life and knowledge. Snow is part of a continuum that begins in Ranginui (the sky father) and moves through the god (atua) of weather Tāwhirimātea, who shapes the form and movement of clouds, winds, rain and snow. Each type of snow carries its own name, qualities and behaviour, reflecting its journey through the skies and land.

Note the religious aspect of MM that worms its way into the “science” above.

And here’s the part where the authors implicitly claim that indigenous ways of knowing (Mātauranga Māori, or MM) supplement modern science. This is the basis for the government’s and educators’ attempts to teach MM alongside modern science as an alternative form of “knowing”.

Connecting Western science and mātauranga Māori

Our first observations of tohu in Antarctica mark the initial step towards intertwining the ancient knowledge system of mātauranga Māori with modern scientific exploration.

Observing snow through traditional practices provided insights into processes that cannot be fully understood through Western science methods alone. Mātauranga Māori recognises tohu through close sensory attention and relational awareness with the landscape.

Is there anything in the following actually contributed to science by MM, or anything new at all? Not that I see. The stuff about ice cores was figured out by modern science:

Drawing on our field observations and past and present knowledge of environmental calendars found in mātauranga Māori and palaeo-climate data such as ice cores, we can begin to connect different knowledge systems in Antarctica.

For example, just as the Maramataka contains information about the environment over time, so do Antarctic ice cores. Every snowflake carries a chemical signature of the environment that, day by day, builds up a record of the past. By measuring the chemistry of Antarctic ice, we gain proxy information about environmental and seasonal cycles such as temperature, winds, sea ice and marine phytoplankton.

The middle of summer in an ice core record is marked by peak levels in chemical signals from marine phytoplankton that bloom in the Ross Sea when sea ice melts, temperatures are warmer and light and nutrients are available. This biogenic aerosol is a summer tohu identified as a key environmental time marker in the Maramataka of the onset of the breading season and surge in biological activity.

I’m highly doubtful that the traditional Māori lunar calendar incorporates “biogenic aerosol signals from marine phytoplankton in the Ross Sea.” Or do they just mean that it’s getting warmer? The embarrassing piece ends this way (again, my bolding):

The knowledge of Maramataka has developed over millennia. Conceptualising this for Antarctica opens a way of using Māori methods and frameworks to glean new insights about the continent and ocean. Grounded in te ao Māori understanding that everything is connected, this approach invites us to see the polar environment not as a remote but a living system of interwoven tohu, rhythms and relationships.

Most of those who claim the importance of indigenous knowledge systems make the argument that those systems show that “things are connected.” But of course that’s nothing new to science! To make such a claim not only bespeaks desperation, but also adds nothing to modern science.  The sentence in bold above gives not one example of how MM can help us “glean new insights about the Antarctic continent and ocean. That also goes for the whole article. Weak parallels are not knowledge.

I conclude that the authors, especially Dr. Winton, should be embarrassed to have written this piece, that the attempt to beef up modern science with indigenous knowledge is a pretty futile effort, and, as always, that New Zealand should not be funding this kind of endeavor. If the indigenous people are still suffering from decades of oppression, well, fix that suffering. But don’t try it by mixing indigenous “knowledge” into modern science! That’s harmful to both Māori and the other inhabitants of New Zealand.

UPDATE: I learned that Dr. David Lillis has also analyzed the Winton and Hoeta paper in a piece at BreakingViews@Co.Nz called “Intertwining Knowledge Systems.”  I deliberately didn’t read it before I wrote the above, but now I have, and we come to the same conclusions.

Lillis takes The Conversation piece apart paragraph by paragraph. Here’s just one example. The first paragraph is a quote from the Winton and Hoeta paper, the second Lillis’s analysis:

“In te ao Māori, snow has a genealogy (whakapapa) that connects it to wider systems of life and knowledge. Snow is part of a continuum that begins in Ranginui (the sky father) and moves through the god (atua) of weather Tāwhirimātea, who shapes the form and movement of clouds, winds, rain and snow. Each type of snow carries its own name, qualities and behaviour, reflecting its journey through the skies and land.”

Here we have a charming allegory. Of course, we can teach it to children, along with similar allegories from other populations in New Zealand, but not literally nor as science. Of course, science also has names for various types of snow, each characterized by particular formation and texture. These types include powder snow, packed snow, corn snow, crud, slush and ice.

His long and devastating piece concludes that the pablum pushed by Winton and Hoeta is not science in the way it’s practiced now:

Let us preserve and value traditional beliefs but not confuse them with modern world science. We owe it to future generations to get this very critical matter right.

Amen! Sadly, they’re not getting it right in New Zealand.

Should scientists become less “humble”?

April 4, 2025 • 9:40 am

It’s been years since I read any Ayn Rand, and her philosophy never fetched me. However, a reader called my attention to the article below on a Rand-ian site that dilates on the “KerFFRFLE”: what I call the fracas about the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s censorship of my critique of their fellow Kat Grant’s piece, “What is a woman?”. I won’t reprise all that; you can see the summary in the collection of posts here.

The  new article, which you can access by clicking on the screenshot below, comes from the New Ideal site, whose motto is “Reason/Individualism/Capitalism”. And it seems a site thoroughly devoted to osculating the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Its own summary:

At New Ideal, we explore pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.

Here you will not find the categories that define today’s intellectual world. We are neither of the right nor the left, but we reject “the center.” We are atheists, but we are for reason, not merely against religion. We champion science, but also free will. We are staunch individualists, but also moralists—embracing a new kind of morality, in which selfishness is a virtue and none of us is bound to be our brother’s keeper. We don’t just oppose “big government,” we eagerly support the right kind of government—one limited to protecting individual rights.

Right off the bat I find a bug: “We champion science, but also free will.”  I disagree heartily with that, for libertarian free will is incompatible with what we know of science. But let’s move on.

Short take of the piece: the author, Ben Bayer, (a Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute) agreed with my critique of the FFRF’s self-definition of sex, a critique that ultimately led to the FFRF’s censorship and my resignation from the organization, along with Steve Pinker and Richard Dawkins.  But Bayer also argues that scientists should be “proud” rather than “humble,” an approach that the person who sent me the article said was “very Ayn Randian.”  I presume some readers will tell me what that means, but it seems to comport with New Ideal’s dictum that selfishness is a virtue. I presume, then, that Bayer equates “pride” with “selfishness” and “humility” with “being a weenie.”

But read below:

As I said, Bayer sides with Pinker, Dawkins, and me on the sex binary, but does take issue with some of the statistics I cited (the stats were supposedly the reason the FFRF found my piece “harmful”).  An excerpt from Bayer:

While Coyne’s arguments about the biological sex binary sound plausible to me, as a non-biologist I’m not fully qualified to evaluate the debate. But I find little to no assistance from his critics. After deciding to unpublish Coyne’s piece, the FFRF offered no specific criticism apart from the claim that the piece did not align with the organization’s values.4 Subsequent defenders of the FFRF’s decision for the most part ignored Coyne’s arguments for the sex binary.5 (One tried to challenge the binary by sharing an article that admits that sex is a biological binary but which attacks its utility for failing to explain everything about the behavior of sexed individuals — a straw man if ever there was one.6)

Instead of offering an argument to show why Coyne is wrong on a matter of his expertise, his critics instead focused on his remarks at the end of the piece addressing Grant’s claim that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals.” They’ve made sensible criticisms of Coyne’s use of statistics in claiming that trans women are more likely to be sex predators.7 (Notably, the study he cites draws on a very small sample size and probably classifies non-predatory behavior like consensual prostitution as a “sex offense.”) So far as I can tell, neither Coyne nor his defenders have responded to these criticisms. They should.

So I’ll respond first to the “statistics” argument. The site I used, and the only one to have any decent statistics, is from Fair Play for Women, and I summarized the data in my vanished FFRF piece this way:

Under the biological concept of sex, then, it is impossible for humans to change sex — to be truly “transsexual” — for mammals cannot change their means of producing gametes. A more appropriate term is “transgender,” or, for transwomen, “men who identify as women.”

But even here Grant misleads the reader. They argue, for example, that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals.” Yet the facts support the opposite of this claim, at least for transgender women. A cross-comparison of statistics from the U.K. Ministry of Justice and the U.K. Census shows that while almost 20 percent of male prisoners and a maximum of 3 percent of female prisoners have committed sex offenses, at least 41 percent of trans-identifying prisoners were convicted of these crimes. Transgender [-identifying prisoners], then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders. While these data are imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught, or on some who declare their female gender only after conviction, they suggest that transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women and somewhat more predatory than biological men. There are suggestions of similar trends in Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia.

Note that I am emphasizing transgender women here, that is, biological men who identify as women. And my main conclusion is this: transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women.  That is to be expected simply because transgender women are men who retain some of the biological propensities of men as well as their strength, and thus are expected to commit sex offenses more often than do natal women. In this sense, at least, you can’t say “trans women are women”, for the data show the expected biological differences that result in imprisonment,

Yes, the statistics are based on a small sample size, and there are problems with them–problems that I noted. But I will say two things.

First, Kat Grant gives NO data, saying only that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals. . . “.  Well, that’s not true, at least for transgender women compared to natal women, which was my point. Note that I was not saying that trans people are, in general, more likely to be sexual predators than cis people. My point was about trans women versus natal women. And that leads to my second point:

I predict that when more data are collected in the future, this pattern vis-à-vis women will hold up. While trans men (biological women) may not be sexual predators more often than are natal women, I will bet that, based on behavioral differences between the sexes, trans women will be more violent—and more guilty of sex crimes—than are natal women.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. But of course we do need better statistics, for data on trans prisoners are hard to get.

However, the statistics were a small part of my argument, which was mainly about how self-identification is a lousy way to define sex (“a woman is whoever she says she is”, as Grant asserts), but also about how one defines sex has very little bearing on the rights of groups. As I said, “The first [point] is to insist that it is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology.” Except in a very few cases, like where one goes to prison or in what sports group one competes, trans people should have all the rights and dignity as everyone else. It is simply dumb to accuse me of trying to “erase” them.

On to Bayer’s accusation that both atheists and those who share my views on biological sex affect an attitude of humility but really should be proud.  Bayer doesn’t define humility right off the bat, but eventually gives us a definition before showing us why we shouldn’t even emphasize “humility” as a scientific virtue:

. . .  “humility,” which in an ordinary definition means “a modest or low view of one’s own importance.” No one who appreciates the power of scientific reason to discover progressively more truth can see it as modest or lowly.

On this basis Bayer excoriates atheists and scientists for affecting an attitude of humility, when in reality we are evincing fierce pride. Thus we should simply drop the “humility” bit:

In recent years, atheists including Dawkins and Pinker have followed a trend in the broader rationalist community of paying homage to the value of intellectual or epistemic humility. Dawkins claims that science by its nature is “humble” insofar as it doesn’t pretend to know everything.  Just a few years back, the house journal of one of Dawkins’s allied organizations, Skeptical Inquirer, published a piece calling on the skeptical movement to embrace the value of humility as its “guiding credo,” as against a consistent “take-no-prisoners” approach that invites the charge of arrogance or elitism.

Yet when atheists fight back against transgender ideology, they are clearly not practicing anything like the now-fashionable intellectual humility. Not only are they asserting with strident certainty the biological reality of the sex binary, they’re doing so knowing that other very intelligent atheists disagree with them. They’re also intransigent about this biological reality even though they know a whole subpopulation of vulnerable people find their assertion not only offensive but threatening to their identities.

That’s not an exercise in humility, but in pride. It’s precisely this pride that Coyne’s critics are condemning; it’s precisely humility that they’re demanding.

Unfortunately, any atheists who otherwise advocate epistemic humility but take the strident approach against transgender ideology are, frankly, hypocrites. Fortunately, there’s a rational way to escape this contradiction and reclaim the moral high ground: they should give up the humility fad.

But when scientists say they are being “humble,” they do not mean “being modest or lowly”.  No, what we mean is that we should never assert that we have the absolute truth about the universe. All scientific “facts” and “knowledge” are tentative, subject to revision in light of new observation.  Now some observations (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun and a molecule of regular water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms) are about as certain as you can get, and I’d bet all my possessions on their objective truth. But certainty has been overturned so often in science that the proper attitude is to adhere to this well-known and eloquent passage written by Stephen Jay Gould in 1994 (my bolding)

Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

THAT attitude is what we mean by “humility”: the idea that one considers something “true’ when it’s supported by so much evidence that you’d be crazy to withhold assent. But even Gould would agree that we never have 100% certainty about anything.

I guess there’s an Ayn-Rand-ian reason for what Bayer does next, which is to argue that having pride in adhering to science and being rational helps us form a set of objective moral values:

The following proposal itself has to be weighed carefully against the balance of the evidence. Recognizing that the very practice of science involves commitment to these real virtues reveals not just a guideline for scientific practice, but the possibility of a rational code of morality. The rational commitment to truth is not just the source of our knowledge, it also helps to create the values that help us survive. Respecting the power of truth to give life means respecting the needs of the minds that pursue it, both one’s own needs and those of others. Though it goes far beyond the scope of this article, there’s an argument here that unlocks a code of moral virtues and values we need to live on earth.

Atheists need to do the work to defend a rational moral code now more than ever. It was a major scandal for the atheist movement that its long-celebrated heroine Ayaan Hirsi Ali converted to Christianity. In her statement explaining her conversion, she argued that the West needs guidance to fight off the triple threats of resurgent authoritarianism, Islamist militancy, and “woke” ideology. “Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?” She argued that only religion can offer such guidance. Someone needs to show anyone who sympathizes with her concern that the values of the Western Enlightenment can form the basis of a powerful moral code — and that religion, by contrast, is at the root of the irrational rivals of the West.

To do that, atheists need the courage of their convictions. The latest row over transgender ideology dramatizes this for all to see. When religious-style dogmatism infiltrates atheism itself, it’s a sign of religion’s pervasive influence on our culture, and thus of the need for the courage to challenge widespread conventional assumptions like the alleged virtue of humility.

But atheists have defended a “rational moral code”: the code of humanism.  Such codes have been set forth by atheists for centuries, including by people like Spinoza, Rawls, Kant, Singer, Mill and Grayling.  The specifics of how one derives morality differ (Rawls, for instance, offered a “veil of ignorance”, Kant offered deontology, and Singer and Mill were utilitarians). And I assert that, in the end, however you derive a moral code, in the end it is subjective, leading to a structure of society that you prefer but cannot justify as “the right structure.”

So what is the sweating Professor Bayer trying to say?  I guess I could review Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but I don’t have the stomach for it.

Sam Harris and Brian Greene debate religion vs. science, and how to deal with believers

February 11, 2025 • 11:15 am

Here we have two notables on opposite sides of the religion-versus-faith issue, or at least clashing about how to deal with the oft-claimed incompatibility between science and religion. In one corner is Sam Harris, who, as you know, is a hard-core critic of faith, and not shy about saying that. His book The End of Faith could be counted as the beginning of New Atheism. In the other corner is Brian Greene, who doesn’t like to criticize religion because, he says, confrontation turns people off (he refused to autograph my Faith vs. Fact book that I was auctioning off for charity).  And Greene doesn’t mind taking Templeton money to fund his World Science Festival.

This 9-minute discussion, from 2018, is part of a 2+-hour discussion you can find here.

Greene argues there’s a big reason to avoid being as hard-core as Harris. He claims that being vociferous (apparently like Harris or Dawkins) undercuts the stated goal of atheists to spread rationality. For Greene sees New Atheists as elitists who tell people that they are “stupid”—a contention that we often hear but I don’t think carries much truth. (Try finding such a statement in Faith vs. Fact!) Rather, Greene believes that people’s deconversion is best accomplished indirectly: by getting people to appreciate the natural wonders of the universe and showing your passion for them. This, he thinks, “will drive things in a good direction.” (I believe he means letting go of religion, though Greene isn’t explicit.) I can’t quite see how that would work.

Sam responds that people’s minds can change; believers can become nonbelievers. That is true, and I’ve seen it and, indeed, have even been instrumental in changing some minds that way. (No, I don’t call people “stupid.”)  Greene responds that he’s changed minds, too, but yet he fails to show that the “soft” approach is more efficacious. How many I-got-people-to-give-up-religion anecdotes does he have? As Sam says, “You’re talking about the carrot and I’m talking about the stick. And the stick works.”  This exchange, by the way, is hilarious.

Sam responds that there are some religious views that in fact facilitate the ruination of nature (global warming, for example, can be justified as a necessary precursor of The End Times).  Greene responds that he’s rarely confronted with such people.

My methods are clearly the same as Sam’s, though I wouldn’t for a minute tell Greene that he has to go after religion big-time. That’s just not his way. However—and I don’t have evidence for this—I do think that the direct approach to criticizing faith, one that avoids ad hominem attacks—is more efficacious. I don’t think telling people that science and faith are perfectly compatible, for instance, can account for the rise of the “nones” in recent years. It appears that many people have become “nones” because they realized that religion is irrational and in conflict with science. As a paper published in 2023 noted:

. . . . the authors queried self-identified religious nones about their reasons for leaving their religion. In response, each participant wrote a short personal essay, which was coded by the research team. Four primary themes emerged. About half of the sample (51.8%) reported leaving for intellectual reasons or because they outgrew their faith. Roughly a fifth of the sample (21.9%) reported religious trauma, such as the hypocrisy of the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. Others (14.9%) reported leaving religion because of personal adversity, such as an inability to make sense of the tragic death of a child, or social reasons (11.4%), including a religious community’s being unwelcoming.

In other words, by far the most common reason for leaving faith is because people perceive that it has no intellectual underpinnings. They don’t leave it because appreciating a passion for the university changes them “in a good way”. (Note that New Atheists also emphasize at least two of the other three reasons people give up their faith.)

Dawkins on the binary nature of sex, the kerFFRFle, and more

February 5, 2025 • 10:25 am

Lawrence Krauss has edited a volume of essays and articles by 39 scientists writing about current threats to science, including censorship, ideological corruption, and so on. It also includes a revision of my paper with Luana Maroja on the ideological subversion of biology. The volume will be out this year, and that’s all I can say about it except that Richard Dawkins has published part of his contribution on his Substack “The Poetry of Reality”. You can read this part for free by clicking on the headline below.  You can guess what the answer to his title question is, and it’s correct.

The essay begins by recounting what prompted its publication online: the kerFFRFLE with the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) that led them to cancel my article on their website Freethought Now! discussing the binary nature of sex, an article that took issue with another piece on that site by an FFRF employee maintaining that “A woman is whoever she says she is.” (The original article is still there; my own critique was removed by the FFRF but you can read it here, here, here or here).  This act of censorship—I wasn’t even informed about it in advance—led me to resign from the FFRF’s Honorary Board, followed by the resignations of Richard and Steve Pinker, and then the dissolving of the entire Honorary Board by the FFRF. Freethought Now indeed!

As Richard notes at the outset:

It makes me particularly sad that [Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, co-Presidents of the FFRF] have chosen to stray so far from their stated mission of promoting freedom from religion and the separation of church and state. They seem to think that opposition to militant trans ideology is necessarily associate with the religious Right. That is false. If it were true, it would be an indictment of the rest of us for neglecting our duty to uphold scientific truth. In fact there is strong opposition from feminists concerned for the welfare of women and girls.1 Also from within the gay and especially lesbian communities2, giving the lie to the myth of  a monolithic “LGBT.” “LGB” represents a coherent constituency within which “T” is regarded by many as an interloper. Most relevant here, cogent opposition comes from biological science – and that, after all, was the whole point of Professor Coyne’s censored article.

FFRF does not lack support. Indeed, among the secular / atheist / agnostic / sceptical / humanist communities of America, the  Center for Inquiry (CFI), with which is incorporated the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), is now the only major organization still standing unequivocally for scientific truth.

This lamentable affair is what has provoked me into posting the following critique on my Substack. It is an abbreviated extract from my article called Scientific Truth Sands Above Human Feelings and Politics, commissioned by Lawrence Krauss for a multi-authored volume on The War on Science, to be published in 2025 by Posthill Press3.  The full article makes a comparison with the debauching of science by TD Lysenko in Soviet Russia in the 1940s..

He then gives a long and very clear explanation, in classic Dawkinsian prose, of why biologists say that sex is binary and how the binary-ness evolved.I’ll give three short extracts, but do read the whole thing (for me, at least, it’s a pleasure to read anything Dawkins writes, not just for clarity but as a model of popular scientific writing). Below you can read about as clear an explanation that a human can produce. Sadly, clarity and truth do not lead to enlightenment among a certain ideologically recalcitrant moiety of Anglophones.  The piece also has sections on “transracialism” and “the theology of woke.”

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes. Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? Sir Ed Davey, leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, said that women “quite clearly” can have a penis. Words are our servants not our masters. One might say, “I define a woman as anybody who self-identifies as a woman, therefore a woman can have a penis.6” That is logically unassailable in the same way as, “I define “flat” to mean what you call “round”, therefore the world is flat.” I think it’s clear that if we all descended to that level of sophistry, rational discourse would soon dig itself into the desert sand. I shall make the case that redefinition of woman as capable of having a penis, if not downright perverse, is close to that extreme. I shall advocate instead what I shall call the Universal Biological Definition (UBD), based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD as the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms, and all the way through evolutionary history.

. . . It is no idle whim, no mere personal preference, that leads biologists to define the sexes by the UBD. It is rooted deep in evolutionary history. The instability of isogamy, leading to extreme anisogamy, is what brought males and females into the world in the first place. Anisogamy has dominated reproduction, mating systems, social systems, for probably two billion years. All other ways to define the sexes fall afoul of numerous exceptions. Sex chromosomes come and go through evolutionary time. Profligate gamete-spewing into the sea gives over to paired-off copulation and vice versa. Sex organs grow and shrink and grow again as the aeons go by, or as we jump from phylum to phylum across the animal kingdom. Sometimes one sex exclusively cares for the young, seldom the other, often both, often neither. Harem systems change places with faithful monogamy or rampant promiscuity. Psychological concomitants of sexuality change like the wind. Amid a rainbow of sexual habits, parental practices, and role reversals, the one thing that remains steadfastly constant is anisogamy. One sex produces gametes that are much smaller, and much more numerous, than the other. That is all ye know of sex differences and all ye need to know, as Keats might have only slightly exaggerated if he’d been an evolutionary biologist.

. . . . Relative gamete size is the only way in which the male / female distinction is defined universally across all animal phyla. All other ways to define maleness versus femaleness are bedevilled by numerous exceptions. Especially those based on sex chromosomes, where you can’t even speak of a rule, let alone exceptions to it. In mammals, sex is determined by the XX XY chromosome system, the male sex having unequal sex chromosomes. Birds and Lepidoptera have the same system, but in the opposite direction and therefore presumably evolved independently. It’s the females who have unequal chromosomes. How do we know? Couldn’t you define males as the sex with unequal chromosomes? Well you could, but then you’d to have to say it’s the male bird that lays the eggs, the females that fight over males, etc. You’d lose every one of the 14 explanations I discussed earlier. Far better to stick with the UBD and say birds use sex chromosomes to determine sex, but it evolved independently of the mammal system. Birds are descended from dinosaur reptiles, and most modern reptiles don’t have sex chromosomes at all. Reptiles often determine sex by incubation temperature. In some cases higher temperatures favour males, in other cases, females. In yet other reptiles, extremes of temperature, high or low, favour females, males developing at intermediate temperatures. Many snakes, some lizards and a few terrapins use sex chromosomes, but they vary which sex has unequal sex chromosomes. Amidst all this variation, the only reliable discriminator is gamete size.

The way the sexes are defined (the UBD, universal and without exception) is, therefore, separate from the way an individual’s sex is determined during development (variable and far from universal). How we in practice recognize the sex of an individual is yet a third question, distinct from the other two. In humans, one look at a newborn baby is nearly always enough to clinch it. Even if it occasionally isn’t, the UBD remains unshaken.

And that is all ye need to know. You’ll have to wait for Richard’s full article, which I’ve read as I contributed to the book, as it has a nice section on censorship in biology as promoted by Lysenko and Stalin.

I still like my list of questions to ask people who claim that sex in humans (or other animals) is not binary but a spectrum. (The proportion of individuals who are exceptions to the gametic definition given above is minuscule, ranging from 1/5600 to 1/20,000):

  1. How many sexes are there in nonhuman animals likes cats, horses, hyenas, ducks, or sharks?
  2. If “two,” Is there a universal way to tell them apart? (the answer, of course, is “two” and “gamete type”)
  3. Now how many sexes are there in humans?
  4. If answer to #3 differs from that to question #1, Why is that the case, how many sexes are there in humans, then, and then how do you tell these more-than-two sexes apart?

Good luck getting an extreme gender ideologue to answer these questions!

Holden Thorp, the editor of science, jettisons the journal’s ideological neutrality

January 9, 2025 • 9:00 am

This piece, by a pseudonymous researcher with a Substack, is another example of scientists decrying the journals and editors who make political statements in public. By so doing, the author points out, they simply decrease public confidence in science and scientists (down 10% in just five years, though still high). In other words, violating institutional neutrality in science is counterproductive. When Nature endorsed Biden four years ago, all it did was to erode confidence in the journal, and in U.S. scientists, while not moving any voters toward the Democrats.

Click the headline below to read the article for free:

The author speaks specifically about Holden Thorp, the editor of Science, certainly the most prestigious science journal in America. Thorp said this after the Democrats lost the election:

Holden Thorp, the Editor-in-Chief of Science, another preeminent science journal—the kind publishing in which makes or breaks careers of aspiring academics and the kind that defines funding and research strategies the world over, wrote a response, of sorts, to the voters “…who feel alienated America’s governmental, social, and economic institutions [that] include science and higher education”. His claim is simple: Trump’s message of “…xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth…” resonates with them. It’s the people’s fault: the people voted wrong. Well… to borrow his own words, “Make no mistake.” Holden Thorp does not speak for me.

You can find Thorp’s op-ed here.

It’s not that the author is a Trump fan, for, like me, he despises the man:

. . . Harris’ legacy is tainted by her support for the diversity and social justice activism responsible for the damage that has been done to Western academic and social institutions in its name. She lost to Donald Trump, a conman and a charlatan of historic proportions who went as far as inciting a coup to remain in power the last time he was president, and a persona as anti-science as one could imagine after Lysenko’s death, second possibly only to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In many ways, 2024 was the year the Democrats handed the election to Trump

About the Pew surveys, with links in the article:

What these surveys and studies show is that people continue to trust scientists more, than they do politicians. It follows from this that the more scientists act like politicians, the less the public will trust us. Yet, in recent decades, scientific institutions and individual scientists have been acting more and more like the politicians by engaging in activism and social engineering.

I do not know who the author is, but he/she rejects being spoken for by Thorp simply because of Thorp’s dismissal of Americans as a “basket of deplorables” and declaring that his journal adheres to “progressive” politics:

Surveys and studies on public trust in science suggest that what people question is not the science, but “… the extent to which scientists’ values align with their own”, and how this alignment—or misalignment—affects the integrity of their findings. What are the values that people expect scientists to align with? According to Holden Thorps of academia, those values are xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth. This disparaging message is nothing new. In fact, this has been the message communicated by individual academics and academic institutions to people on the outside for at least two decades, the message that can be found everywhere, from land acknowledgements to course syllabi. Academics are telling people that they stole “indigenous land”, that they are oppressors, colonizers, racists, misogynists, -phobes of all sorts, fascists, racists, nationalists. It is furthermore alleged that it is up to the enlightened academic elite to show the unwashed masses the path to salvation that lies through admitting one’s sins, accepting one’s guilt, and correcting the way one thinks, speaks, and behaves. Notably, the sins in question, as well as the alleged enlightenment of the accusers, are both imaginary.

It is not only that Holden Thorp and those like him have for decades been dripping disdain for the very people who pay their salaries, travel allowances, and research costs from their taxes; It is not only that his brand of academics have for decades been demonizing those regular voters he is talking about—bus drivers and fast food employees, teachers and policemen, servicemen and businessmen—as some sort of Nazi-adjacent monsters, accusing them of all sorts of imaginary sins. It is that those same people, while being demonized for their desire to live and enjoy normal, safe, and productive lives under the conditions afforded by the freedom and safety of Western civilization, the civilization built on the blood of the brave defenders of its values—those same people have at the same time witnessed the full-throttled support academia threw behind the black lives matter riots and Islamic terrorists—those real, living and breathing Nazis who behead children, rape women, burn entire families alive, and shoot their pet dogs; Hamas supporters were allowed to roam free on academic campuses, attacking people, vandalizing buildings, leaving a mess for the janitors to clean up, and, in general, destroying things built over generations by the very people the academics demonize.

In other words, those voters Holden Thorp is so disdainful of were witnessing the hypocrisy of the academic community, the members of which compromised the truth for political gain—exactly the sin Thorp is accusing his political rivals (Trump supporters) of. Against this backdrop, the surprising part is that trust in science and scientists remains as high as it does.

The article gives several more examples of the institutional capture and lack of institutional neutrality of science editors and journals, including the sad tale of Laura Helmuth and Scientific American (I note that the new, Helmuth-less journal seems to have retracted its wokeness). But the article ends on a note of hope. I have added the links from the original article.

As I was finishing this piece, there were several positive developments. As I have already mentioned, Laura Helmuth resigned from Scientific American, offering the journal a chance to reclaim its former scientific rigor. Marcia McNutt, the president of the United States National Academy of Sciences, wrote a powerful editorial Science is neither red nor blue, published in Science. The University of Michigan, formerly one of the hubs of diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology squandering some US$15M/year, resolved to no longer solicit diversity statements in faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure. A UofM physics professor offered a relatively mild testimony of the damage done by the DEI initiatives and the black lives matter grift, a testimony that was unthinkable only a few years ago. More generally, in the wake of October 7th, multiple institutions adopted political neutrality. These are important first steps in reversing and repairing the damage that was done to scholarship, research, innovation, and teaching over the decades of woke/DEI insanity.

As they say, “One can hope. . . .”

The next link gives FIRE’s list of schools that have adopted institutional neutrality à la the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principles. There are now 29 of them: a good start, but still a drop in the bucket given that there are about 6,000 colleges in the U.S.

A while back Luana debated Holden Thorp about the ideological takeover of science. Here’s a video of that debate, and I don’t think Thorp came out on top