Fantastic paper, up to a point. I share your annoyance at its excessively charitable attribution of prosocial motives to academic censorship. Of course, the censors believe their motives are prosocial but there is nothing prosocial about suppressing scientifically grounded claims and claims grounded in the scholarship of the humanities. That is antisocial and corrupt.
In particular, I disagree with the framing in the abstract, in which 'narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance' is contrasted with 'scientists, who are primarily motivated by self- protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well- being of human social groups'. There is no incompatibility here. What is evident from the successful censors we have seen is that many academics who believe they have prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups are dogmatic bigots who will not tolerate science that contradicts their ideological beliefs. In this way they think very highly of themselves whilst doing evil.
Pinsoff's point is well taken, although his position, at least as you quote it, is a motte and bailey. The motte is that the misuse of the language of morality to justify immoral behaviour is bullshit. The bailey is that morality itself, the realm of right and wrong actions, is bullshit. He equates the two by equivocation on 'morality'.
In fact, morality is not nice for an entirely different reason. Morality is by no means a simple matter of what is right being determined by sympathy and compassion. The very thing that Pinsoff and you are complaining about is often immoral behaviour wrapped up as a display of virtuous compassion.
I think you are probably smart and wise enough to realize that the censorship has always been there. Because scientists have always been human. And what's changed is not so much the tendency toward censorship but the specifics of the issues being censored and the people exposed to it, which is resulting in it being noticed more clearly by some.
This time, it's views we value that are being censored. Last time/next time/future time, it was/will be the other way around, and we or people like us will be the censors. Because we are human.
I'm not trying to demoralize you or undercut your argument. I'm pointing out the valuable larger lesson here. For those who believe in real academic and scientific freedom of inquiry, this is just another stop at Censorship Station on the Long Train Ride To Enlightenment.
Today's allies will be tomorrow's enemies, as they were yesterday. Too many people right now have just switched from seeing things in black and white, to seeing things in white and black.
The ideological conformists have been gunning for the sciences because the sciences, with the logic and processes that they mandate, are the last defence against their twisted conformity.
We should remain vigilant and stop their nonsense every time it arises.
I really hope that we reach a point where we won’t have to have a bunch of people sign on to every article to get it published. If I were on the “other side” and saw that list of authors I’d say, “there’s no way the majority of them had any real input, and it’s likely that some of them didn’t even read it”. I’m not saying that’s true, but it would be nice if we had an ecosystem where these articles weren’t being authored by the same group of people all the time, but rather there were more articles by fewer, different, people and the knowledge builds.
This is excellent stuff, which anyone interested in academic freedom ought to read. Censorship comes too often from the point of view of deciding 'what is moral'. But no one becomes morally enlightened by gaining a higher degree in anything. Sometimes, it might be quite the reverse. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and sometimes the truth just isn't nice.
"Unidentified flying harms" - Black magic. Sorcery. It's the witch-hunt all over again.
Fantastic paper, up to a point. I share your annoyance at its excessively charitable attribution of prosocial motives to academic censorship. Of course, the censors believe their motives are prosocial but there is nothing prosocial about suppressing scientifically grounded claims and claims grounded in the scholarship of the humanities. That is antisocial and corrupt.
In particular, I disagree with the framing in the abstract, in which 'narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance' is contrasted with 'scientists, who are primarily motivated by self- protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well- being of human social groups'. There is no incompatibility here. What is evident from the successful censors we have seen is that many academics who believe they have prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups are dogmatic bigots who will not tolerate science that contradicts their ideological beliefs. In this way they think very highly of themselves whilst doing evil.
Pinsoff's point is well taken, although his position, at least as you quote it, is a motte and bailey. The motte is that the misuse of the language of morality to justify immoral behaviour is bullshit. The bailey is that morality itself, the realm of right and wrong actions, is bullshit. He equates the two by equivocation on 'morality'.
In fact, morality is not nice for an entirely different reason. Morality is by no means a simple matter of what is right being determined by sympathy and compassion. The very thing that Pinsoff and you are complaining about is often immoral behaviour wrapped up as a display of virtuous compassion.
Well said, and I agree.
I think you are probably smart and wise enough to realize that the censorship has always been there. Because scientists have always been human. And what's changed is not so much the tendency toward censorship but the specifics of the issues being censored and the people exposed to it, which is resulting in it being noticed more clearly by some.
This time, it's views we value that are being censored. Last time/next time/future time, it was/will be the other way around, and we or people like us will be the censors. Because we are human.
I'm not trying to demoralize you or undercut your argument. I'm pointing out the valuable larger lesson here. For those who believe in real academic and scientific freedom of inquiry, this is just another stop at Censorship Station on the Long Train Ride To Enlightenment.
Today's allies will be tomorrow's enemies, as they were yesterday. Too many people right now have just switched from seeing things in black and white, to seeing things in white and black.
Good piece.
The ideological conformists have been gunning for the sciences because the sciences, with the logic and processes that they mandate, are the last defence against their twisted conformity.
We should remain vigilant and stop their nonsense every time it arises.
Excellent article, as always.
I really hope that we reach a point where we won’t have to have a bunch of people sign on to every article to get it published. If I were on the “other side” and saw that list of authors I’d say, “there’s no way the majority of them had any real input, and it’s likely that some of them didn’t even read it”. I’m not saying that’s true, but it would be nice if we had an ecosystem where these articles weren’t being authored by the same group of people all the time, but rather there were more articles by fewer, different, people and the knowledge builds.
Hi! Your link to al-Gharbi's Reason article isn't working.
This is excellent stuff, which anyone interested in academic freedom ought to read. Censorship comes too often from the point of view of deciding 'what is moral'. But no one becomes morally enlightened by gaining a higher degree in anything. Sometimes, it might be quite the reverse. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and sometimes the truth just isn't nice.