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).
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.
Hi Simon, thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. They are all good stand-alone points, but I do think they (including the pod you linked) misread our paper. First, it was not really a philosophy of science piece. We give Popper & falsification only a passing mention; mostly, if anything, the paper is an opinion piece, about how science *should* be conducted, drawing far more on sociology of science (Merton, Rauch) than philosophy. It is true that my view, and I think most of my co-authors though I am not sure, is that to be taken as serious science, a claim or theory should generate *something* falsifiable. Philosophers tie themselves up in knots torturing the obvious, imho, at last sometimes. I have seen edge cases presented as if they debunk falsificationism, such as predictions that cannot be falsified yet most would consider science, such as, there is life somewhere in the universe or that global warming will render half the Earth uninhabitable in 200 years. And yet, both generate falsifiable predictions, or, at least, can. Is there life on Mars? Titan? Was Oumawauma a derelict alien artifact? If one has a model that predicts warming is so severe 200 years out, then it should be *even better* at predicting warming 5 or 10 or 20 years out. All of these are falsifiable predictions. OTOH, the point of our paper was not to do a deep dive into the ins, outs, and limits of falsificationism in general, or Popper in particular. Similarly, CRT often draws on very real historical events that are not in dispute, including slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and the like. But all this was well-known before CRT came along. In their critique of our approach, the pod crew made the steelman point, arguing that CRT is all about "invisible" racism. Here I hope you see the problem. If racism is invisible, it can't be seen, and has a status (according to their analysis) akin to supernatural phenomena. Once "systemic racism" gets beyond things one does not need CRT for (slavery etc.), it very much becomes a purely political activist call to arms, rather than anything resembling a scientific theory. The main workhorse for "unconscious racism" has been the Implicit Association Test. Fortunately, it generates many falsifiable predictions (0=egalitarianism, scores are unconscious, because it powerfully causes discrimination changing implicit bias reduces discrimination). All of these have, in fact, been disconfirmed by research in the last 10 years. Regardless, our paper was (as we noted several times) not supposed be an in-depth analysis of CRT or PoMo or related perspectives; it was meant to contest *the worst of those views as being implemented throughout science and academia." We went to considerable lengths to point out a few cases where we *agreed* with such perspectives (e.g., Longino). In the Supplement, you will note that we highlighted a Rutgers Diversity Committee recommendation for best hiring and admissions practices because it argues for implementing practices that *limit bias and permit admissions and hiring to be based primarily on merit.* Those are diversity type practices we can (and do) get behind. The supplement is quite extensive for precisely the type of reasons we are discussing here. The purpose of our paper was to defend and advance the use of merit in science; it was completely impossible to, and not the purpose of, our paper to thoroughly engage the nuances of highly varied CRT or PoMo perspectives. The assault on objectivity and merit go hand-in-glove. Even the National Academy of Sciences report referenced in our paper says nothing but "myth of meritocracy" nonsense in its >300 page report, such as this: "White-centered culture in STEMM prizes meritocracy and establishes the
criteria that perpetuate success based on similarity or likeness to the ingroup." Whereas we repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) acknowledged the existence of all sorts of biases in science, none of this makes emphasizing merit "White-centered culture." It is the type of delusional nonsense that our paper targeted for debunking, regardless of the fine points of either falsficationism or CRT.
Hi Lee, thanks for your incredibly detailed response. I am in large agreement with all your comments. However, I hold the view that the podcasters may not have necessarily misread the paper. It seems to me that they were more likely engaged in a form of philosophical nitpicking and indulging in intellectual games. I must admit, in my own nerdy way, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of listening to those discussions. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that neither of their core critiques actually posed a challenge to the core claims put forth in "In Defense...". As you rightly pointed out, delving deeper into the philosophy of science would have likely transformed the paper into a different genre altogether, such as a philosophy of science paper, rather than an opinion piece. Therefore, I may need to retract my initial claim that such an exploration could have strengthened the paper. It may, in fact, venture beyond the intended scope of "In Defense...". Regarding steelmanning, I largely stand by your side. While I continue to hold the position, as you rightly acknowledged, that there are circumstances where one must interpret CRT in even more charitable ways or indeed the most charitable way possible, such as when striving for compromise on actual matters or engaging in philosophical disputes, I agree with your assessment that the institutions targeted in your opinion piece often take the most extreme versions of CRT at face value. This is evident in some of the absurd policies you exemplified and criticized in your paper. Therefore, I believe it is entirely legitimate to challenge the implementation of these worst views, not only in academia but also in the increasingly pervasive influence on Big Tech.
The main reason for highlighting the critique presented in the Micro-Digressions Podcast is not that I consider it the strongest critique conceivable, but rather its notable departure from the majority of critical commentary I have encountered thus far. It truly stands out by exemplifying how one ought to engage with ideas subject to criticism in an intellectually honest manner, especially during a time when even publications like Science disappointingly resort to deceitful slander. What we truly need is a substantially increased presence of critiques that emulate the podcast's approach, while also aiming to minimize the frequency of critiques that mirror the qualities exhibited by individuals such as Thorp and Myers. Though it may seem like wishful thinking, it remains an essential aspiration.
Simon, this has been a pleasure. Yes, you are absolutely right that, regardless of what I disagree with about the M-D Pod, it was a thoughtful, reasonable, and fair-minded critique. There is a HUGE (I can't write HUGE big enough to capture this) difference between
"LMFAO at these rightwing racists playing the victim!"
"This crew is just promoting misinfo about how science is being corrupted by progressive dogmas"
and
"Their use of Popper was superficial, they did not steelman the best of CRT, and the paper would have been better had they had some philosophers of science on board."
One of those is indeed not like the others. Glad you engaged.
I just wrote a response to your response to the criticisms that I made on the Micro-Digressions Podcast, and you might be interested in checking it out. I wrote this in a cranky mood, and so I want to state up-front that: A) I REALLY liked the "In Defense of Merit" paper (despite my complaints), and B) I'm kind of using "In Defense of Merit" as a peg on which to hang a lot of my frustrations with the attitude that scientists have towards philosophy.
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?
"Faith formation" is a gradual process during which off the shelf lab coats are gradually replaced by garments of (initially) similar cut but more luxurious fabrics until the point when the faith has become True Scientism with robes inspired by the great Liberace, but with more crystals.
"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.
Ole delusiuonal PZ couldn't have said it better himself! My fav was
PZ: "they do not define merit"
Me: Its a central figure in the paper.
PZ: Victory Lap!
I bet you love that stuff, right? Discourse at its best.
Ironies aside, if you want to see a serious conversation, go to the next comment.
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.
Hi Simon, thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. They are all good stand-alone points, but I do think they (including the pod you linked) misread our paper. First, it was not really a philosophy of science piece. We give Popper & falsification only a passing mention; mostly, if anything, the paper is an opinion piece, about how science *should* be conducted, drawing far more on sociology of science (Merton, Rauch) than philosophy. It is true that my view, and I think most of my co-authors though I am not sure, is that to be taken as serious science, a claim or theory should generate *something* falsifiable. Philosophers tie themselves up in knots torturing the obvious, imho, at last sometimes. I have seen edge cases presented as if they debunk falsificationism, such as predictions that cannot be falsified yet most would consider science, such as, there is life somewhere in the universe or that global warming will render half the Earth uninhabitable in 200 years. And yet, both generate falsifiable predictions, or, at least, can. Is there life on Mars? Titan? Was Oumawauma a derelict alien artifact? If one has a model that predicts warming is so severe 200 years out, then it should be *even better* at predicting warming 5 or 10 or 20 years out. All of these are falsifiable predictions. OTOH, the point of our paper was not to do a deep dive into the ins, outs, and limits of falsificationism in general, or Popper in particular. Similarly, CRT often draws on very real historical events that are not in dispute, including slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and the like. But all this was well-known before CRT came along. In their critique of our approach, the pod crew made the steelman point, arguing that CRT is all about "invisible" racism. Here I hope you see the problem. If racism is invisible, it can't be seen, and has a status (according to their analysis) akin to supernatural phenomena. Once "systemic racism" gets beyond things one does not need CRT for (slavery etc.), it very much becomes a purely political activist call to arms, rather than anything resembling a scientific theory. The main workhorse for "unconscious racism" has been the Implicit Association Test. Fortunately, it generates many falsifiable predictions (0=egalitarianism, scores are unconscious, because it powerfully causes discrimination changing implicit bias reduces discrimination). All of these have, in fact, been disconfirmed by research in the last 10 years. Regardless, our paper was (as we noted several times) not supposed be an in-depth analysis of CRT or PoMo or related perspectives; it was meant to contest *the worst of those views as being implemented throughout science and academia." We went to considerable lengths to point out a few cases where we *agreed* with such perspectives (e.g., Longino). In the Supplement, you will note that we highlighted a Rutgers Diversity Committee recommendation for best hiring and admissions practices because it argues for implementing practices that *limit bias and permit admissions and hiring to be based primarily on merit.* Those are diversity type practices we can (and do) get behind. The supplement is quite extensive for precisely the type of reasons we are discussing here. The purpose of our paper was to defend and advance the use of merit in science; it was completely impossible to, and not the purpose of, our paper to thoroughly engage the nuances of highly varied CRT or PoMo perspectives. The assault on objectivity and merit go hand-in-glove. Even the National Academy of Sciences report referenced in our paper says nothing but "myth of meritocracy" nonsense in its >300 page report, such as this: "White-centered culture in STEMM prizes meritocracy and establishes the
criteria that perpetuate success based on similarity or likeness to the ingroup." Whereas we repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) acknowledged the existence of all sorts of biases in science, none of this makes emphasizing merit "White-centered culture." It is the type of delusional nonsense that our paper targeted for debunking, regardless of the fine points of either falsficationism or CRT.
Hi Lee, thanks for your incredibly detailed response. I am in large agreement with all your comments. However, I hold the view that the podcasters may not have necessarily misread the paper. It seems to me that they were more likely engaged in a form of philosophical nitpicking and indulging in intellectual games. I must admit, in my own nerdy way, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of listening to those discussions. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that neither of their core critiques actually posed a challenge to the core claims put forth in "In Defense...". As you rightly pointed out, delving deeper into the philosophy of science would have likely transformed the paper into a different genre altogether, such as a philosophy of science paper, rather than an opinion piece. Therefore, I may need to retract my initial claim that such an exploration could have strengthened the paper. It may, in fact, venture beyond the intended scope of "In Defense...". Regarding steelmanning, I largely stand by your side. While I continue to hold the position, as you rightly acknowledged, that there are circumstances where one must interpret CRT in even more charitable ways or indeed the most charitable way possible, such as when striving for compromise on actual matters or engaging in philosophical disputes, I agree with your assessment that the institutions targeted in your opinion piece often take the most extreme versions of CRT at face value. This is evident in some of the absurd policies you exemplified and criticized in your paper. Therefore, I believe it is entirely legitimate to challenge the implementation of these worst views, not only in academia but also in the increasingly pervasive influence on Big Tech.
The main reason for highlighting the critique presented in the Micro-Digressions Podcast is not that I consider it the strongest critique conceivable, but rather its notable departure from the majority of critical commentary I have encountered thus far. It truly stands out by exemplifying how one ought to engage with ideas subject to criticism in an intellectually honest manner, especially during a time when even publications like Science disappointingly resort to deceitful slander. What we truly need is a substantially increased presence of critiques that emulate the podcast's approach, while also aiming to minimize the frequency of critiques that mirror the qualities exhibited by individuals such as Thorp and Myers. Though it may seem like wishful thinking, it remains an essential aspiration.
Simon, this has been a pleasure. Yes, you are absolutely right that, regardless of what I disagree with about the M-D Pod, it was a thoughtful, reasonable, and fair-minded critique. There is a HUGE (I can't write HUGE big enough to capture this) difference between
"LMFAO at these rightwing racists playing the victim!"
"This crew is just promoting misinfo about how science is being corrupted by progressive dogmas"
and
"Their use of Popper was superficial, they did not steelman the best of CRT, and the paper would have been better had they had some philosophers of science on board."
One of those is indeed not like the others. Glad you engaged.
Hi Lee (and Simon),
I just wrote a response to your response to the criticisms that I made on the Micro-Digressions Podcast, and you might be interested in checking it out. I wrote this in a cranky mood, and so I want to state up-front that: A) I REALLY liked the "In Defense of Merit" paper (despite my complaints), and B) I'm kind of using "In Defense of Merit" as a peg on which to hang a lot of my frustrations with the attitude that scientists have towards philosophy.
https://humeanbeing.substack.com/p/falsificationism-is-false
Thanks for engaging with the podcast discussion, and I hope you find this useful.
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?
"Faith formation" is a gradual process during which off the shelf lab coats are gradually replaced by garments of (initially) similar cut but more luxurious fabrics until the point when the faith has become True Scientism with robes inspired by the great Liberace, but with more crystals.
"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/