In this essay, I review some of the more common and prominent criticisms that have appeared regarding our recent paper on merit in science (open access and truly accessible to lay readers). In general, they are really bad. (In a subsequent essay, I will cover how one might actually criticize our paper coherently). Our paper briefly lit up the editorial pages (
Fully agree on the absurdity of most of the reactions to "In Defense…". However, amidst the plethora of peculiar, ideologically ambiguous, and largely flawed "reviews" of it, a select few recent discussions truly shine, showcasing thoughtful engagement with opposing or "controversial" perspectives. One example is the conversation between Spencer Case, host of the "Micro-Digressions Podcast," and philosophers Matt Lutz and Alex Byrne. Within their critique of "In Defense...," while predominantly supportive of the core hypothesis, they shed light on some of the potential philosophical limitations of the paper. You can access the podcast episode through the following link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/956725/13007346-wokeness-in-science-critiquing-a-critique
The two major arguments in "Wokeness in Science: Critiquing a critique" are the following:
Firstly, Abbot et al. fail to transcend the understanding of science championed by Karl Popper, thereby neglecting to address certain limitations inherent in Popper's theory, thus weakening their argument and undermining the impact they intend to generate. While I concur with this viewpoint to a large extent, it is noteworthy that a more comprehensive exploration of the philosophy of science could have bolstered the paper's strength yet does not substantially undermine the core hypothesis presented in "In Defense..." which remains substantively valid.
Secondly, while avoiding strawmanning, Abbot et al. do not sufficiently engage with a more charitable rendition of critical social justice theory. From a philosophical perspective, it is generally expected that a counter-argument refutes a steelman version of the opposing position. In a previous essay of mine that you cited here (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/holdens-motte-thorps-bailey-simon-lucas/), I alluded to the benefits of interpreting critical social justice theory in a more benevolent manner, encouraging thoughtful contemplation on e.g. addressing biases and leveling the playing field. Moreover, this approach necessitates a more thorough defense of the conceptual foundations underpinning prevalent conceptions of "merit." However, it is important to note that "In Defense..." was arguably intended as a critique of institutions like university administrations, HR departments within big tech companies or large parts of the general public, who often adopt the most extreme versions of critical social justice theory as unquestionable dogma.
Social media connoisseurs are familiar with nazi, fascist, racist, transphobe and literally having shed meanings to become "Your wrong & you're mother is a slag" as we used to say in the days of simpler stupidity. Now fraud has joined the "Who Needs Definitions?" invective collection. It's literally unreal.
Question from an historian interested in faith formation: at what point do all these smart people, all putting their moral crusade ahead of their objectivity, become not science at all, but scientism? Do they need priestly robes first or can lab coats count?
"This practice violates scientific norms of submitting articles to journals anonymously to avoid potential bias."
Uh, no. If that were how things were done, no one would ever get anything published: how would the publishers know who to respond to? ~Reviewers~ are blinded to the authors, not submissions. I've been reviewing papers for medical journals for roughly the past 35 years. I think there was a single instance when an opinion piece was sent to me for an urgent review. The rest of the hundreds of papers I never had a clue about. In one instance, I favorably reviewed a paper submitted by one of my former trainees. I had no clue.
"...the public has been taught that scientific insight occurs when old white guys with facial hair get hit on the head with an apple or go running out of bathtubs shouting “Eureka!” "
That's indeed how the public sees things, mainly because it's rare as hen's teeth for the average schlub to have an original thought in his or her entire lifetime. But that's not how things usually work. Much more often, what's said is more along the lines of "hmmm...that's funny."
Overall, while I understand the authors' writing of the paper, the very fact that the paper n needed to be written is a darkly ominous sign of the times. The notion that merit somehow wants to be defended means that we are either in or are about to occupy another sleep of reason. That has exactly never been a god thing.
About the only reason I can think of to defend the obvious--like that merit is a good thing, kinda like the tautology that good things are good things--is to expose ridiculous illusions as just that.
As bad as the paper was, this is an order of magnitude worse.
Fully agree on the absurdity of most of the reactions to "In Defense…". However, amidst the plethora of peculiar, ideologically ambiguous, and largely flawed "reviews" of it, a select few recent discussions truly shine, showcasing thoughtful engagement with opposing or "controversial" perspectives. One example is the conversation between Spencer Case, host of the "Micro-Digressions Podcast," and philosophers Matt Lutz and Alex Byrne. Within their critique of "In Defense...," while predominantly supportive of the core hypothesis, they shed light on some of the potential philosophical limitations of the paper. You can access the podcast episode through the following link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/956725/13007346-wokeness-in-science-critiquing-a-critique
The two major arguments in "Wokeness in Science: Critiquing a critique" are the following:
Firstly, Abbot et al. fail to transcend the understanding of science championed by Karl Popper, thereby neglecting to address certain limitations inherent in Popper's theory, thus weakening their argument and undermining the impact they intend to generate. While I concur with this viewpoint to a large extent, it is noteworthy that a more comprehensive exploration of the philosophy of science could have bolstered the paper's strength yet does not substantially undermine the core hypothesis presented in "In Defense..." which remains substantively valid.
Secondly, while avoiding strawmanning, Abbot et al. do not sufficiently engage with a more charitable rendition of critical social justice theory. From a philosophical perspective, it is generally expected that a counter-argument refutes a steelman version of the opposing position. In a previous essay of mine that you cited here (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/holdens-motte-thorps-bailey-simon-lucas/), I alluded to the benefits of interpreting critical social justice theory in a more benevolent manner, encouraging thoughtful contemplation on e.g. addressing biases and leveling the playing field. Moreover, this approach necessitates a more thorough defense of the conceptual foundations underpinning prevalent conceptions of "merit." However, it is important to note that "In Defense..." was arguably intended as a critique of institutions like university administrations, HR departments within big tech companies or large parts of the general public, who often adopt the most extreme versions of critical social justice theory as unquestionable dogma.
Social media connoisseurs are familiar with nazi, fascist, racist, transphobe and literally having shed meanings to become "Your wrong & you're mother is a slag" as we used to say in the days of simpler stupidity. Now fraud has joined the "Who Needs Definitions?" invective collection. It's literally unreal.
Question from an historian interested in faith formation: at what point do all these smart people, all putting their moral crusade ahead of their objectivity, become not science at all, but scientism? Do they need priestly robes first or can lab coats count?
"This practice violates scientific norms of submitting articles to journals anonymously to avoid potential bias."
Uh, no. If that were how things were done, no one would ever get anything published: how would the publishers know who to respond to? ~Reviewers~ are blinded to the authors, not submissions. I've been reviewing papers for medical journals for roughly the past 35 years. I think there was a single instance when an opinion piece was sent to me for an urgent review. The rest of the hundreds of papers I never had a clue about. In one instance, I favorably reviewed a paper submitted by one of my former trainees. I had no clue.
"...the public has been taught that scientific insight occurs when old white guys with facial hair get hit on the head with an apple or go running out of bathtubs shouting “Eureka!” "
That's indeed how the public sees things, mainly because it's rare as hen's teeth for the average schlub to have an original thought in his or her entire lifetime. But that's not how things usually work. Much more often, what's said is more along the lines of "hmmm...that's funny."
Overall, while I understand the authors' writing of the paper, the very fact that the paper n needed to be written is a darkly ominous sign of the times. The notion that merit somehow wants to be defended means that we are either in or are about to occupy another sleep of reason. That has exactly never been a god thing.
About the only reason I can think of to defend the obvious--like that merit is a good thing, kinda like the tautology that good things are good things--is to expose ridiculous illusions as just that.
The non-paywalled version of our WSJ op-ed is available here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/02/our-wall-street-journal-op-ed-free-at-last/