Psychologist Explains How Social Scientists Are Harming Science

Here’s an excellent article from Clay Routledge, a Professor of Psychology at North Dakota State University.

Many social scientists are excited about and poised to participate in the upcoming March for Science, which is being described by the organizers as a “celebration of our passion for science and a call to support and safeguard the scientific community.” I realize that this will be a controversial position, but I believe the best way social scientists can contribute to the March for Science is to quietly sit this one out. I am very much pro-science and share some of the concerns people have about cultural and political threats to science. That being said, in my opinion, the social sciences are currently too compromised to help the cause. Even those who have the best intentions risk doing more harm than good.

Why is that?

For one, there is very little political and ideological diversity in the social sciences. It is true that many academic fields lean left, but this especially the case within the social sciences. Check out Heterodox Academy for details. In many social science departments it is easier to find a Marxist than a Republican. In fact, it is quite common for social sciences departments to have no Republicans at all.

Sound familiar?

Routledge has much more to say and it gets even better. It is well worth your time to read his essay.
My favorite sentence is this:

The truth is, some social scientists, though certainly not all of them, and many social activists and journalists have weaponized the social sciences for ideological warfare.

Indeed. And given the clear and obvious post-modern elements of the March for Science, I think it worth serious consideration that the March for Science itself is an attempt to weaponize science for ideological warfare.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in activism, March for Science, Science, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Psychologist Explains How Social Scientists Are Harming Science

  1. Dhay says:

    Hemant Mehta, in his blog post dated 16 March 2017 and entitled “God’s Not Dead 3 Will Hit Theaters on Easter Weekend in 2018″, tells us that

    We knew back in October that God’s Not Dead 3 was going to happen. Fake stories of Christian persecution never get old for the Religious Right …

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/03/16/gods-not-dead-3-will-hit-theaters-on-easter-weekend-in-2018/

    We know that the films’ stories will be “fake” in the sense of being fiction or of being fictionalised — all films are like that — but I’m not sure about that “fake” persecution.

    In my early twenties, eagerly seeking to broaden my intellectual horizons, I signed up to a course of thirty evening class lectures on the History of Philosophy; the lecture duration was an hour and a half (or two hours — I’m hazy at this remove, the tutor a lecturer (“professor” to you foreigners) at the academically high-ranking and popular local university.

    The first lecture started off well enough, with a look at the early Greek philosophers and their thoughts, but then one of a Christian couple asked a question, the lecturer scornfully put them down, and from then on the teaching was frequently punctuated by anti-Christian sneers and jibes directed towards that couple.

    At that time I was a strong atheist, an early adopter of the hard materialist ‘we know there’s only leptons and baryons therefore the idea there can be a God is simply absurd’ version of what became known as the Courtier’s Reply. But the lecturer was over the top, obsessively hostile; despite my own disdain for Christianity, it was unpleasant to be sat there listening; I was glad when the lecture ended, and couldn’t face a repeat.

    Nowadays I would make an official complaint about his bad behaviour, and ask for my course fees back; but I was young and timid then, so simply never went to any of the twenty-nine remaining lectures.

    Why raise this, and in this thread? Partly to explicitly contradict Mehta’s dismissal of academic persecution as “fake”, and to do so by relating an anecdote from my own (British) experience; partly because this lecturer guy was a lecturer (“professor”) at a highly rated university — and because if I, an atheist then, could not stomach the toxically anti-Christian atmosphere this lecturer created in class for a single evening’s teaching, I would have had no likelihood of being able to remain in a university Philosophy course taught by him.

    And that brings me fully back to the thread topic: with there being some quite virulently SJW type Humanities lecturers (“professors”), I cannot see any student thriving or even coping with their courses who is not a carbon-copy of the lecturer and the lecturer’s views and hostilities. And presumably each next generation of lecturers is selected from the survivors of such courses.

    It’s called survival of the extremist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s