More Postmodern Attacks on Science

One of the things we learned from the March for Science is that if you cut funding to science, you are anti-science.  Well, according to that definition, we now have more evidence that the social justice warriors are anti-science. From Ottawa to pull research chair funding unless diversity issue addressed at universities:

The federal granting councils that award the prestigious Canada Research Chairs say universities must offer up more diverse candidates for the honour or they will lose their funds.

Directors of the program, which sends out $265-million every year across 1,600 researchers, say new measures unveiled on Thursday would help to address the chronic underrepresentation of women, Indigenous people, those with disabilities and visible minorities among the award’s ranks. For example, only 28 per cent of chairholders at large universities are women, and they are more likely to be in the bottom of the program’s two funding tiers.

Under the new rules, postsecondary institutions have until Dec. 15 to create an action plan on how to achieve more diversity among their candidates, and then they have another 18 to 24 months to ensure the demographics of those given the awards reflect the demographics of those academics eligible to receive them.

In the postmodern world,  the most important aspect of scientific research is the researcher’s skin color and gender.  But why I am not surprised that Kirsty Duncan, the Canadian Science Minister imposing such “diversity” through threats of slashing funds, has a history of promoting crank science?

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in post-modernism, Science, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to More Postmodern Attacks on Science

  1. Ilíon says:

    In the postmodern world, the most important aspect of scientific research is the researcher’s skin color and gender.

    The word is ‘sex’, not ‘gender’. People come in sexes; two, specifically, Words — in many languages other than English — come in genders.

    Using the word ‘gender’ when you mean ‘sex’ is allowing the SJW and other leftists to colonize your mind.

  2. Kevin says:

    I also refuse to use the term “cisgender”. I’m a man, period.

  3. Ilíon says:

    ^ Exactly. Furthermore, I am a man, not merely a ‘male’ (as in “[insert any of various leftist epithets] white male”).

  4. Regual Llegna says:

    Exreme ideologies that contain relativism, in is dogma (base statement of truth or a truth, the thinking that made the idelogy or system workable), will every time attack any concept that requires objectivism to work.

  5. Dhay says:

    > … Kirsty Duncan, the Canadian Science Minister imposing such “diversity” through threats of slashing funds, has a history of promoting crank science

    From Michael’s link:

    Duncan has said repeatedly that patients need good science and evidence-based medicine; her praise in that 2011 speech, though, was reserved for the small band of researchers who continue to pursue CCSVI, even as the rest of science moves on.

    “I know how hard it is to do cutting-edge research, to come from another discipline and find a new way of exploring,” she told the Zamboni supporters. “I know how bruising it can be emotionally, financially and professionally … Thank you for standing strong in the face of adversity.”

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeaus-new-science-minister-kirsty-duncan-was-advocate-of-controversial-and-largely-disproven-ms-treatment

    If you read the full article, you find the “adversity” she refers to is the convincing scientific evidence against CCSVI.

    That being so, I wonder whether Duncan had read, and in that 2011 speech was channeling, the 2006 paper entitled “Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism”:

    Abstract
    Background
    Drawing on the work of the late French philosophers Deleuze and Guattari, the objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the evidence-based movement in the health sciences is outrageously exclusionary and dangerously normative with regards to scientific knowledge. As such, we assert that the evidence-based movement in health sciences constitutes a good example of microfascism at play in the contemporary scientific arena.

    Objective The philosophical work of Deleuze and Guattari proves to be useful in showing how health sciences are colonised (territorialised) by an all-encompassing scientific research paradigm – that of post-positivism – but also and foremost in showing the process by which a dominant ideology comes to exclude alternative forms of knowledge, therefore acting as a fascist structure.

    Conclusion The Cochrane Group, among others, has created a hierarchy that has been endorsed by many academic institutions, and that serves to (re)produce the exclusion of certain forms of research. Because ‘regimes of truth’ such as the evidence-based movement currently enjoy a privileged status, scholars have not only a scientific duty, but also an ethical obligation to deconstruct these regimes of power.

    [H/T WM Briggs] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/holmes-deconstruction-ebhc-06.pdf

    This year she’s tackling “diversity”; in a subsequent year will Duncan tackle “microfascism” and evidence-based “regimes of power”?

  6. Dhay says:

    The controversy sputters on; this quote is from a long Quillette article by Aaron Neil, entitled “Why It’s Time To Stop Worrying About First World ‘Gender Gaps’”:

    Government funding will be withheld until universities nominate an equal number of women. But aren’t universities progressive strongholds, bereft of bias and bastions of equality? Of all places, it seems unlikely that university faculties are actively holding women back.

    As of December 2016, only 30 per cent of the funded chair positions were held by women. However, between 2000 and 2015, 31 per cent of applicants for the jobs were from women. Based on these numbers it would be impossible to argue that sexist hiring practices are the cause of the gender imbalance in research chairs. Fewer women hold research chair positions because fewer women apply; it’s that simple.


    Using Canadian Research Chairs as an example, fewer women apply to research chair positions because fewer women choose to work in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. Out of all Canadians who work in STEM, only 22 per cent are women.

    Furthermore, despite attempts to encourage women to work in STEM, these numbers are barely changing. Even as more women join the workforce, few choose to work in STEM fields. Between 1991 and 2011, women accounted for 75 per cent of the growth in the number of workers in university-level non-scientific occupations, but only 27 per cent of the growth in the number of workers in university-level scientific occupations.

    http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/

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