Bastardizing Empiricism | The Science Wars
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- In this video, we will be examining and taking apart so-called “feminist empiricism,” and expose it for the revolting pseudointellectual farce that it is.
Before anything, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Alan Soble, philosopher of sexuality at Drexel University who has followed and commented on Evelyn Fox Keller’s work ever since it made the long descent from biophysics to Neo-Freudian feminist epistemology in the 80s. His participation in the Science Wars was therefore imperative; he was a great asset to the scientific realists. His two essays, “Defending Bacon” and “Gender, Objectivity, and Realism,” are well worth a read; the first is a comprehensive defense of Bacon from his abusers, and the latter a comprehensive rebuttal of the entirety of Keller’s philosophy.
Note 1- I personally regard psychoanalysis, as applied to scientific rather than literary endeavours, as pseudoscience, since its primary object of study, the unconscious, is a philosophical black box. As a consequence, psychoanalytic theories are and always have been fundamentally unfalsifiable, whatever pretences to more recent strides toward empiricism its adherents claim to have made. As a consequence, psychoanalysis is at best not science and at worst pseudoscience. For a more detailed examination of this matter, see Karl Popper’s 1963 book, “Conjectures and Refutations;” his excoriation of Alfred Adler and Sigmund Freud is the stuff of legend.
Object Relations Theory, which is the psychoanalytic theory that Keller principally wields against science, is a Neo-Freudian theory that differs from its predecessors in that it views interconnectivity, and not sexual drives, as the principle motivator of human behaviour. Its emphasis on the relation between infant and mother in shaping development, therefore, is more innocent than what Freud had originally conceived (but only just! There’s a lot of talk about how our attitudes toward other are ultimately based on the arrival and subsequent retraction of our mothers’ breasts during infancy, and the psychological associations that we made during these instances. Needless to say, the evidence supporting these views is weak at best.)
Note 2- She is referencing the philosopher Richard Rorty’s book, “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature,” where he offers a similarly relativistic outlook- one which likely influenced Keller. The tone of Rorty’s philosophy can be summarized with his definition of truth: “Truth is whatever your contemporaries let you get away with saying.” Unfortunately for him, however, his peers in the philosophy of science do not appear to have let him get away with it.
Note 3- The original misquote was by Leibniz, a great admirer of Bacon. His misquote was not intentional and not done in service of slandering Bacon, so he cannot be accused of libel. To her credit, Merchant did not use Leibniz’s misquote in “The Death of Nature” to support her case that Bacon’s conceptualization of nature was as a woman who ought to be tortured, but her case was nevertheless based in some extremely uncharitable interpretations of quotes that had to be isolated, have their meanings stretched, and organized in such a manner as to defend her thesis. It’s a highly contrived argument; for more on this, see Pesic, “Wrestling with Proteus: Francis Bacon and the ‘Torture’ of Nature,” Isis, 1999.
Note 4- Some may try to argue that the passages where Bacon refers to “shaking [Nature] to her foundations” or "hounding nature" are also examples of violent language against a female nature by the sexist Bacon. I will here have to defer to Alan Soble's paper, "In Defense of Bacon," which addresses the matter far more comprehensively and eloquently than I could in a mere half hour.
Note 5- This quote appeared in the beginning of Novum Organum, which was the text that started the scientific revolution. Other examples of Bacon saying that scientists ought to listen to and obey nature can be found in Novum Organum, Book 1, Aphorisms 1 and 129.
Note 6- It is not clear to me what Keller is babbling about here, since nuclear energy is by far our most efficient source of energy (and at present, far more productive than solar,) and also because I don’t know what “ecological” vs “pathogenic” medicine entails. I have the lurking suspicion that she doesn’t either.
Note 7- This was in the conclusion of Indiana State University’s Philosopher of Science Noretta Koertge’s response to Helen Longino’s essay embracing ideologically oriented science. The essay, which I highly recommend, is called “Feminist Values and Science.”
WORKS CITED:
Pinned to the top of the comments sections below.
ERRATA:
If you are reading this, no errors have been found yet.
My Twitter: / kingcrocoduck
My Alternate Channel: / @crocoduckvlogs4104
My Patreon: / kingcrocoduck
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
WORKS CITED:
[1] Longino Helen E., (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia 2 (3): pg 51
[2] www.researchgate.net/profile/Helen_Longino
[3] www.researchgate.net/profile/Evelyn_Keller
[4] Keller EF. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1980; 28(1):133-60. Lewis Carroll: a study of mathematical inhibition.
[5] Keller Evelyn F. Feminism and Science. Signs Vol. 7, No. 3, Feminist Theory (Spring, 1982), pp. 595-596
[6] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. pg 87
[7] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. pg i
[8] Keller Evelyn F. Feminism and Science. Signs Vol. 7, No. 3, Feminist Theory (Spring, 1982), pp. 595-596
[9] Keller, Catherine. Apocalypse Now and Then: A Feminist Guide to the End of the World. Fortress Press, Dec 1, 2004. pg 165
[10] Evans, Mary. Feminism: Feminism and the Enlightenment. Taylor & Francis, 2001. Pg 179
[11] Romano, Carlin. America the Philosophical. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2013. Pg 347
[12] Des Jardins, Joseph R. Environmental Ethics. Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001. Pg 226
[13] Coakley, Sarah. Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender. John Wiley & Sons, Apr 15, 2008. Pg 90
[14] Mindell, Arnold; PhD. Quantum Mind: The Edge Between Physics and Psychology. Deep Democracy Exchange, Dec 31, 2012.
[15] Science: a masculine disorder? Jill Bowling, BSC; Brian Martin, BA, PhD. Sci Public Policy (1985) 12 (6): 308-316.
[16] Soble, Alan (1995). In defense of Bacon. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25 (2):192-215.
[17] Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature. Harper & Row, 1980.
[18] Soble, Alan (1995). In defense of Bacon. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25 (2):192-215.
[19] Cohen, Robert Sonné; Gavroglu, Kostas; Stachel, John; Wartofsky, Marx W. Science, Politics and Social Practice: Essays on Marxism and Science, Philosophy of Culture and the Social Sciences In Honor of Robert S. Cohen. Springer Science & Business Media, Feb 28, 1995. pg 338
[20] Merchant, Carolyn. The Scientific Revolution and The Death of Nature. FOCUS-ISIS, 97 : 3 (2006). pg 518
[21] Max-Neef, Manfred A. "From knowledge to understanding: Navigations and returns." Development Dialogue 2 (2009): pg 1
[22] Mindell, Arnold; PhD. Quantum Mind: The Edge Between Physics and Psychology. Deep Democracy Exchange, Dec 31, 2012.
[23] Harding, Sandra. Value Free Research is a Delusion. New York Times, 22 October 1989
[24] Farrington, Bejamin. The Philosophy of Francis Bacon. University of Chicago Press (March 1966). pages 62 & 131
[25] Soble, Alan (1995). In defense of Bacon. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25 (2):192-215.
[26] Harding, Sandra. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press, 1986. pg 113.
[27] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death: Essays on Science and Culture. Taylor & Francis, 1993. pg 50
[28] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death: Essays on Science and Culture. Taylor & Francis, 1993. pg 92
[29] Longino Helen E., (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia 2 (3): pg 59.
[30] Longino Helen E., (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia 2 (3) pg 64.
[31] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. pg 117
[32] Keller, Evelyn Fox. "Nature, Nurture, and the Human Genome Project," in Daniel J. Kevles and Leroy Hood, eds. The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. pp. 281-299.
[33] Gross, Paul R; Levitt, Norman. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Johns Hopkins, 1994. pg 141
[34] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. pg 154
[35] Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. pg 164
[36] Keller, Evelyn Fox (1983). A feeling for the organism: the life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman. pg 198
[37] Gross, Paul R; Levitt, Norman. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Johns Hopkins, 1994. pg 142
King Crocoduck Citation and research. A rare commodity.
***** The universe has been acting very strange lately. KC uploading, Xidnaf actually uploading again, Thunderf00t lama drama, and the list goes on. Just missing some stuff from Donexodus and we can assume the world is ending.
SkidRowTrash They say that I sound like VenomFangX.
King Crocoduck I want to thank you for all the videos you've made. I've watched all of them and many of them multiple times. I also would like to ask if you are planning a debunking video of electric universe theory if you could point me in the right direction. Because here in mormon central Utah, electric universe "theory" is gaining significant popularity. my dad goes on about how it perfectly explains everything.
VenomfangX's evil twin perhaps.
Because as we all know, having actual knowledge relevant to the claims you make is the work of Satan. And obviously VFX would be the intellectually and morally disabled twin.
Well I for one look forward to her future tenure at Cape Town University and her undoubtedly fascinating research on lightning spells. Crazy bint.
CoolHardLogic Is the Lightning spell a 3rd level arcane spell? (Nerd Joke) :)
MisterTutor2010 it offers a +2 rhetorical evasion buff with an added critical hit shame ratio.
3rd level Evocation, get your magic schools right.
watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw
All we can do is hope that she honors the object-subject relation by getting struck.
I have an upcoming required class focusing entirely on Standpoint theory and feminist empiricism. Your work is extremely helpful and has pointed me in the right direction for areas of research. Thanks a lot
Required class in this horse shit? Would I be right in surmising that the purpose of this class is not to show what insane claptrap it is, but to brainwash students along with mandatory "social justice" classes?
I would assume it's a major-specific requirement than a general education requirement. If it's the latter, consider transferring.
dobraf yes, it's a major required course. And no, it's not showing how flawed these theories are, but rather promoting them. Transferring might be nice, but it's only the one course to get through :p
CoolHardLogic hey! No lollygagging! Back to whipping flattards!
If that is a required class I feel for you . At least you have Crocoducks research to aid you in questioning the validity of the assertions you are going to have to sit through . Good luck
So that's why feminists have such an affinity for Islam.
They both hate Bacon.
Psychoanalysis says a whole lot more about the person doing it than the person it is being done to.
I haven't heard truer words in a long time.
+StateiftgeNihil Exactly
Yes, and thinking that psychoanalysis is anything other than bullshit says even more about the person doing it.
Na pewno, psychoanalysis has a long history of being used impugning people's motives as a way of deflecting criticism
+na pewno
What I said in my original comment was psychoanalysis, in and of itself. #Paradox
Also, psychoanalytic therapy is not necessarily the same thing as what Keller is doing. She is trying to delegitimize science through psychoanalysis; that is not "therapy."
31:20 "Now it may be true that scientists, as individuals, may not ever be fully objective. But the consequences of their models of nature, and whether they successfully approximate the behavior of our _shared reality_; those consequences are objective."
And that's the crux of this whole debate. Objectivity is not a given, objectivity is a *goal*. Trying to interpret results of an experiment while intentionally removing as many preconceptions and biases, to try to see what those results actually say. The point is to make it so a person of a completely different gender, race, religious background, on the other side of the planet can run the same experiment and get the same results.
It bugs the shit out of me that feminists like this want to _intentionally_ insert the most fallible thing we know of, our flighty little brains, directly INTO the research, practically guaranteeing difficult or impossible to replicate results. Bravo feminists.
Exactly. Objectivity is a goal to strive continuously towards, as we've learned from past "science" which thought it was being objective at the time, but held some preconceived beliefs that ultimately proved false and led to some disastrous consequences.
If these self-proclaimed feminists were only advocating stronger objectivity, nobody would have a problem here. It's their insistence that _objectivity itself_ is wrong, and they must inject their core belief system to fix it. I've never heard anything more backwards.
"Objectivity doesn't mean that you can't love your work. It simply means that you can't force nature to conform to your expectations of how it should work."
- King Crocoduck (2017)
I just had to quote that.
Imagine dedicating your life's work to complete nonsense?
If these feminists ever have a moment of lucid introspection that allows them the perspective to realise, how applying their feminist ideology to the scientific method (of all things) they've tried to rationalise possibly the purest form of nonsense ever espoused, they'd begin to see how monumentally futile their life's work has been.
The damage this would have on their ego would be too great and that's why I believe they're subconscious mind would prevent them from ever reaching such a realisation.
Ya, absolute waste of human potential, lives spent generating false statements.
+iamgoddard Agreed. Exactly like the pope and all religionists.
Rob Bulman, what bothers me it's their GETTING PAID TO SPREAD THEIR NONSENSE.
Imagien getting paid and respected for being a con artist...
Chopra is mystifying in his ability to spew out constant streams of words with absolutely devoid of content. How can someone say so much of so little value?
Have you ever listened to a politician's speech? They can say something so vague in political speeches, it holds 4 different meaning for 4 different people.
Here is a clue how he does it: wisdomofchopra.com Try it out, it is pretty hilarious.
there was even a study about the people who follow his bullshit:
journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
Brian Boruma
'Fractal Idiocy' Everything he says is mind numbingly ridiculous at all observable scales. Even his lesser included footnote statements are hopelessly laughable.
Brian Boruma And yet he's building on postmodern epistimologies that have taken hold of the humanities
Is there any physics research where she applies her methods to produce superior results than those founds by regular science?
Female Oppression = Magnitude of Male Dominance * Actions of oppression per second per second
F = ma
+Pierre Lindgren Of course not. She left physics (hard science) for psychoanalysis (cheap pseudoscience). She rejects objectivity.
Right. Of course : )
She did Feminist research into fowl aerodynamics... but the ducks exposed her by calling her out for what she was: "Quack! Quack! Quack!"
Ivana Rydia nice.
how is this real? i feel like i've fallen through the looking glass
Friended An elongated looking glass
Useless philosophical BS. Billions of people don't have potable water or proper sewage infrastructure.
Russell Shute nobody is forcing you to watch. The title should have informed you about the philosophical content. But it comes down to this: which is more likely to produce workable answers to real life problems? "Feminist science" or real science? If you answer the latter, you must see some value in the debunking of the former.
I get where you're coming from, but the only reason that you *do* have potable water and proper sewage infrastructure is that science was allowed to investigate the natural world uninhibited by people like this, as it had been in the past. These issues do matter.
LOL WARE YOU IN AFRICA
Keep in mind that I am a woman.
I used to review books. One day I had one sent to me called American Horror or something like that, it's been years and I have tried to block it out. It was really disturbing. The first half was a series of short stories written firmly from the idea that all men are rapists and all woman are victims. From a narrative perspective we are clearly supposed to sympathize with the woman, even though they were pretty horrible people who treated every man they had contact with as a monster, and in every case murdering him horribly because of it.
It was also terribly written, like actively ignoring basic grammar. Random punctuation, not capitalization. It gave me a headache.
The second half was...a decidedly deeply angry misandry rant. Part of which talked about how she refused to use proper grammar because it was an invention of men.
I did not give it a good review.
Thank you for rising above to call out batshit when you see it.
I personally believe it is a bit of human nature to victimize ourselves so that we may attribute all our life's problems to a perceived enemy. It may be different for men and women sure, men may find it easier to blame their fathers, women to blame a patriarchy perhaps. But to take a step back and see people as generally doing the best they can, some are jerks, some not, but to ultimately to take responsibility, fight obvious prejudice where we see it, and push towards a common good, I think shows immense self-respect to put yourself out there.
We all have biases we're trying to fight. This is... I don't want to say sexist, but lumping people into groups, and labeling them all bad, doesn't help us beat the very thing these people see themselves as battling against.
You pulled another one out of the hat! there's a lot to unpack here, great video, kudos King Crocoduck! :) well worth the wait, looking forward to the next one!
*unquack
all I got to say to feminists like this is this:
Thinking must never submit itself,
neither to a dogma,
nor to a party,
nor to a passion,
nor to an interest,
nor to a preconceived idea,
nor to anything whatsoever,
except to the facts themselves,
because for it to submit to anything else would be the end of its existence.
This is the new YT series I look forward to. I'm not great with my words, but you elucidate a lot of my own thoughts. Thanks for that.
From the looks of it it's only going to be a three parter. At least in the feminism section.
The Internet I'm waiting for the Queer theory part. I can't wait to hear Crocoduck's reaction to "Queering Agriculture."
> not good with words
> "elucidate"
lol
This series is the best thing on YT, hell one of the best things I've ever watched. You are doing a major public service. Everyone in academia needs to see this. Keep at it. Thank you so much. infinity/10, full marks.
True! And he's defending science from a line of attack almost nobody else is defending against and that is potentially poised (given substantive academic footprint) to do significant damage to science. In contrast, climate and evolution deniers on the right do not have any meaningful academic standing.
While climate deniers wield considerable political influence, leftist anti-science seeks to destroy science at its core -- to deny objectively, deny 'truth' and disqualify results of scientists based on their race or sex -- not merely dispute a finite subset of scientific findings as climate deniers do. Climate deniers don't claim the scientific enterprise is wrong and needs to be torn down and rebuilt as some left-wing ideologues do.
So first there was Lysenko, then this woman, then the African science lady who wants science to be more African. That's it. I'm starting my own form of science. It's called Paulisrightism. It works like this. I'm always right.
Paul TheSkeptic And we know Paul is right by the inductive field forums of inner strength quadratic equations.
First published paper under the new system. Well done. You win a Paulbell prize. No money yet. Just the prestige.
Well that was depressing.
6:30 What would Keller have said about a man fighting for hours trying not to cry?
Probably would have written a paper on how the engineering team secretly wanted the shuttle to blow up to satisfy repressed deviant sexual urges that they could otherwise not live out in their sanitized science.
I literally feel honored to contribute to the content you make. This is one of those things I enjoy paying for.
I'd imagine these take a while to produce... but I'm really looking forward to more quantum theory videos and of course, any beatdowns between creationists, YEC, etc.
Watching this series feels like a I'm reading a true crime novel and watching _Ancient Aliens_ simultaneously.
I would refuse an "honorary" degree from anyone. There is no honor in fraud.
A silly comment, since 'honorary' degrees go to people who have demonstrated knowledge and excellence in a particular field without having been formally educated in said field.
SuedeStonn Ken Ham has an honorary degree.
Like this one? www.wtsp.com/news/trayvon-martin-to-be-given-posthumous-honorary-degree/436991752
if there's an honorary degree there should be a dreadful degree that you get by cheating.
Khorps
"BATSHIT CRAZY SHAMING!!!"
My. Face. Hurts.
Ha! You still haven't seen the worst of it. Wait until we get to the postmodern abuses of science, the resemblances to Deepak Chopra and Spirit Science become truly uncanny.
+King Crocoduck Please, my face is still red from trying understand what kind of crack Spirit Science has been smoking, and what would ever possess him to ever publish such dribbling nonsense.
Watching these videos scares me deeply to think that these ideas are actively penetrating the scientific community. You both are doing great work helping the rest of us feel sane again.
King Crocoduck Have you come across "Queering Agriculture" yet?
I reckon that, at best, "feminist science" would function exactly like the same way as science is currently, albeit with a lot of people patting themselves on the back for being so virtuous with little effort.
At worst, it'll end up being a mess of undisciplined works and falsehoods, with a lot of people patting themselves on the back for being so virtuous with little effort.
DANKEST TIMELINE
where crocoduck actually has free time
I started my uni career in arts, humanities and linguistics back in the mid-eighties, while working at uni library. A few years later I had to take a break until 2000, when I started to study a wider range of subjects starting with maths and included a mix of science and linguistics (I did 2 BAs. Long story). Anyway, during all this time I never heard of any of these women (knew a bit about Bacon) and I'm glad I didn't. My uni is well-known for being open-minded, and caters mostly for mature students who work (it is very much accredited and is in the top side of the uni charts), and so teaches an incredibly wide-ranging set of subjects - perhaps less so now due to the govt shafting education - so if this were an international way of thinking, I'm sure that given the wide variety of courses I took, I'd have heard of it. Yet until watching these videos, which are fascinating, these women were unknown to me. Other female scientists, historians, writers etc were quoted, taught about, etc (whatever was appropriate). In fact I've been introduced to numerous new female scientific heroes! The only thing I heard/saw which I agreed with from those you quoted was the concept of bringing up boys and girls differently. I had (have!) 2 boys and 2 girls within 5½ years. I didn't have *time* to separate toys etc. Though trying to buy things they'd like for their birthdays was a nightmare due to the boys-girls toy segregation in the shops. My girls usually ended up with stuff from the boys section because they were equally into science and technology as the boys were. It has not really changed a generation later now I try to find what my grandkids want!
Forget pink and blue, make everything purple and let boys play with dolls if they want to! They often do when they're toddlers.
I can't get over how pathetic the "argument" is - one quote from a book published at the beginning of the 17th century? Because nothing helps keep your fingers on the pulse of society like a 400 year old book!
As much as I hate feminist videos AND anti feminist videos, this is a very well presented argument. To be clear about my use of the word hate. I hate the fact that my favorite RUclipsrs spend their time doing videos on a topic that I care nothing about.
You're developing a very tightly crafted and effective argument with this series.
5:10 This is why managers should not have say in engineering/science decisions.
Engineers should have final say on all safety related like the o-ring.
Lol. Right "youre fired" says the "ultimate hedgemony executive" talking to seassoned developers inventors engineers and physics and academia
There ought to be a "Nobel Disease" version for those who have had distinguished careers in whatever area of scientific study, along with the ever-valuable paper citations, but lacking a Nobel prize and have swiftly hopped off the rational train & made call---with impunity---at Port Quackery.
First!
(subjectively)
tothumn nice
Objectivity in science is achieved through peer review. In order for a theory to be validated, review by many other experts, both male and female, must be completed.
Politics or religion can make the process difficult, and delay consensus for many years. With luck, objectivity can eventually be achieved.
Watching this series, I keep being reminded of all those ex-Christians who say they lost their faith after reading the Bible. Learning about Christianity in an environment that isn't controlled by theologians can be all it takes for someone to reconsider their worldview.
I'm sure that learning about Standpoint theory in an environment that isn't controlled by feminist academics can have very much the same effect.
This series is bloody good work, Crocoduck. Thanks for doing it and please don't be discouraged by a relative lack of views. This content is incredible and needs to continue.
Doesn't the metaphor of nature being female, mother nature, rather pre-date Bacon?
There is little more disturbing then imagining what kind of place the world would be if Kelleresque people ever inherit Earth.
Thank you for this outstanding and in-depth critical analysis!
A series without parallel on youtube or beyond!
Section on the Francis Bacon quote beginning around 15:30 was excellent. Pure misread at best, spin for ideological purposes at worst, then followed up by nonsense theory building on top of nonsense theory in perpetuity, taking place in an academic ideological hivemind.
Enjoying the series so far.
i love what you do. i'm from germany and your videos are useful to get down some scientific phrases and vocab i will be able to use in my thesis. best regards
One of the most salient comments I've seen on this came from a mentor of mine. He said that thinking is not being logical. The idea that thinking is just applying logic to thought is the mistake that the ancient Greeks made. It is the mistake the West made in the Middle Ages. It is the mistake that the postmodernists are making today; the people you're talking about. Thinking is choosing the context you are going to use before you start rationalizing. By context I mean disciplines like scientific thought, mathematical/philosophical thought, logical thought, computational thinking, etc. By looking at it this way, one can see that logic is still in the mix, but it's one of many developed, disciplined thought processes that need to be considered, not the "master" discipline that everything else bows down to. If universities would understand this, it would go some distance to eliminating nonsense masquerading as academic pursuit.
Science is not about "bending nature to do your bidding"...
It is about _understanding_ nature, seeing where the limits are, and trying to do the best we can within those limits. Limits can not be bent!
Thank you so much for this series. It was only a few months ago that I realized the root of what bothers me about Neo-fem ideologies is the misapplication of science under a guise of legitimacy. This series expands on my realization in a wonderful way. I didn't know about the history of feminist epistemology and how long it's been creeping around in the underbrush.
11:46 Quite ironic, since many of the world's most influential scientists have also been outspoken pacifists... therefore toppling her Jenga-esque argument from the lowest brick.
Fall of 1969 I was in English 101 when the instructor [Wold], dressed like Castro, said he was a communist. He passed around copies of the American Communist worker and other current communist periodicals. He said, "None of you have ever heard of women's liberation, but you are about to hear a great deal about it." All the magazines were devoted to women's liberation. Within 2 years I did not know a woman in college that did not subscribe to MS magazine.
my god! how can somebody be smart enough to get a phd in physics while at the same time being able to orally excrete such twisted nonsense?
i wonder if she would have been brave enough to repeat her baseless, arrogant and insulting interpretation in the presence of bacon...
Easy. Money influence post modern right wing backed agendas and mysogyny-towards-masculine and a few lbs. Of self absorbed word salads
When I see this attitude in feminists it reminds me of DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
They declare a whole group of people egotistical and deficient in empathy and claim they are a victim of that, then proceed to attack that group and when members demonstrate pain and emotional distress as a direct result, they will view that as evidence of a fragile ego thus warranting even more relentless attacks. When you point out their callous attacks and how they affect people, they deny responsibilty as they repeat their behavior.
Much anticipated, not disappointed!
Always a good day to see one of your videos in my feed. Thank you for your insights, and keep up the good work!
Ecological vs Pathogenic medicine is basically an attempt to describe taking account of a patient's (often not called a patient) perspective when faced with a pathology. It's effectively an expansion of sociological labelling theory (see Keszla and McKenna). Does being labelled as having ADHD affect the behaviour of the subject and does that label following them through life deny them opportunities either through the interpretation of that label by others or the interpretation of the label by the self. Presented with an opportunity, does the subject pre-emptively exclude themselves from it based on a pathological interpretation of their behaviours.
Instead, Ecological medicine is typically explored through a "formulation" rather than diagnosis. A formulation is basically using the language of the patient rather than diagnostic language and without mentioning diagnostic criteria. This may have some application in psychological treatment, especially where the criterion for certain diagnoses in manuals like the DSMV are sketchy (See Jon Ronsons "The Psychopath Test"), based on poor or no science, or the criteria are so broad that a label is effectively meaningless (see autism circa 2020). Ecological medicine is absolutely not applicable to physical maladies that are measurable without the dimension of personal interpretation, although might be of use to treat comorbidities such as mild depression without resorting to medication.
Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I hope you get academic credit for it.
This fiasco ultimately began with German Idealism, culminating in Friedrich Nietzsche (though no idealist), who stated "There are no facts, only interpretations."
I love this series more each video.
"Diabolical science" has a nice ring to it.
watching her talk makes me enraged. I do not like getting accused of crimes I did not commit, let alone would ever dream of. And every idea she shat out is simply one accusation after another.
How anyone thinks social justice is a good thing I will never understand. At most, I get those that were fooled by word trickery, but not the ones that take it seriously.
dude that was one of the best commentary I hav heard in a while hats off
if they think that there is such thing as male bias, let us create 2 research groups, completely isolated, one consisting of men and other of women, and let's see if there will be any significant difference of interpretation of the phenomenon they are seeing. By scientific method we will be able to determine if the male bias is harmful to science.
25:00 holy shit my head hurts... from facedesking
oh sweet jeebus that hurt to listen to. "Separate science from a simple analysis of data"? Talk about asking for a free pass to inject your rhetoric into hard results. Are we really moving this backward away from objectivity?
i've built up a pain resistance from self inflicted wound, as by the same methods.
Ty, this is a nice overview of what I've seen but not understood.
Fascinating content, thoroughly researched and nicely presented.
Well done KC. Very enjoyable and illuminating.
Everytime this Chupacabra guy talks I can feel my IQ dropping exponentially every second I listen to him. Takes hours to recover. Not sure about long term brain damage though yet.
well done King, well researched and well stated, observant and astute discourse. Sheds some light on various aspects of the trend towards the politicisation of science.
Desired outcomes will always guide research.
If one group feels their desired outcomes are being ignored, or misunderstood in the majority, they will eventually respond
I'm new to this topic (thanks to you), but as a cognitively flexible thinker I find this/her approach to looking at science rather interesting and not at all inconceivable or false as such. To me, more data adds to 'total truth' rather than multiple conflicting datas and ideas necessarily contradicting/excluding each other from a total/valid truth. It's refreshing to be able to consider ideas through different point of views. One will always channel all that through their own (biased/conditioned) processing anyways so blindspots are inevitable, but nevertheless it's always insightful to be able to discover alternate approaches. Let that be an additive rather than a selective contextual interpretation.
Christopher Hitchins had a very apposite metaphor for the likes of Harding and Fox-Keller - termites. They add nothing to the sum of human knowledge but seek to undermine and discredit the scientific method, which has been at the heart of the greatest advances in human knowledge in the whole of our history.
A wonderfully insightful and well-articulated video as always KC, well done
Eager for the next episode.
I have been waiting for another one of your videos! Awesome!
I can buy into some parts of this. It is true that people are usually less objective than they think they are. It is true that our actions can be infused with bias in ways that we fail to recognize. It is also true that the scientific revolution happened in a historical setting where patriarchy was the norm, and it is true that we should be vigilant against the influence of cultural values into the study of nature. Even the (apparently controversial) opinion that objectivity is an illusion doesn't strike me as particularly egregious.
If the goal were to simply recognize and eliminate bias, I could be on board with that. However, I have serious problems with the use of these premises to justify a bastardization of science. It's one thing to recognize the inevitable failure of scientists to always be perfectly objective, but it's another thing entirely to throw objectivity out the window because of this. Objectivity is still worth striving for.
It is really ironic the way some people will call science reductive while themselves having reductive views about science ("Western metanarrative" etc.). And of course, the "reductive" part of science is nothing less than its ability to concisely describe facts about nature. It is reductive in a sense, but it is an asset and not a liability.
Oh, and to say that objectivity is an inherently masculine value is a pretty terrible insult to women, no better than saying that empathy is exclusive to women.
This is fantastic work: better than 98% of the edgy athiest shit on youtube.
You have my sincere thanks. Keep doing this quality work.
Welp, there goes yet another fragment of my f*cking faith in humanity.
I take breaks from these videos to go get some science, PBS Space Time or something else. (Im a history/politics/business major btw, polisci undergrad then MBA)
KCs video is important, ultimately some people have wasted way too many words trying to inject nonsense into hard sciences, it is good to be inoculated against it.
after listening more, I am convinced that some of the work KC is criticizing here is the result of LSD
When this video is over, Im going back to PBS Space Time to enjoy some pure science
thoroughly enjoyed this series. Very patient, methodical work. Please accept this observation with the good will that is intended; if you spoke slower it would improve the viewing experience. It has a slight machine gun quality and it is a disservice to the quality of the work. I am just making a suggestion as someone who appreciates this kind of effort, if I wasn't so impressed by the video I would keep my opinions to myself. Off to watch your other videos. Well done
Excellent video and extremely comprehensive. I'd actually brushed up against a lot of this in piecemeal during my training and longstanding interest in the sciences, but this broad analysis you offer has been invaluable in helping me fully understand this attempted undermining of the sciences.
One thing that is interesting about these types of ideologues that you only touch on briefly, is how the results of science through its application in the real world are constantly conflated with science as a discipline to improve our understanding of the universe. This relates somewhat to your "trojan horse" analogy regarding how feminist empiricism would be sold as improved objectivity, despite its conflict with the scientific method at its core. However, I think the "applied science" vs "pure science" dishonesty deserves to be shown a bit more clearly on its own, as the general public will be most convinced by this kind of argument. Honestly, I think that things are heading towards a more PR style approach by these pseudointellectuals, since most of STEM has proven fairly resistant to this type of nonsense. If you find this idea sufficiently interesting, I would definitely look forward to a video with your thoughts on the subject.
Also, it's quite revealing that they only use the term "nature" to describe the subject of science, which is obviously chosen due to its feminine connotations. More apt terms like "reality" or "the universe", which are gender neutral ways of describing the principal object of science, are avoided completely in this type of literature. Such loaded language is so constant and obvious in the excerpts you have shared that it is frankly insulting to the intelligence of the listener, and only further proves the underlying dishonesty of these ideas.
I am glad you had the determination to go through all of your educational endeavors. I, on the other hand, would just told them to STFUAFMAS. It’s reals versus feels. Good job.
KC - what is your opinion on Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity"? He defends himself against charges of relativism through appeal to Wittgensteinean language-games and his own theory that we need to move beyond the enlightenment rationalist language-game in light of the insights of Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, and Davidson. Although I don't fall anywhere close to the relativist side of the fence, I think his insights regarding the importance of language in philosophy are compelling and worth noting.
Comunicators (public and private) , journalists, mouth pieces, publishing houses, editors, big msm, etc just as guilty
This is great stuff but the sound levels are driving me crazy.
Your sound is certainly better than the vast majority of my own videos but I'm still hoping you can figure out how to better adjust the levels in future installments of this excellent series.
Thanks making these videos.
23:34
Objectivity consists in so fully realising the countless intrusions of the self in everyday thought and the countless illusions which result - illusions of sense , language , point of view , value , etc - that the preliminary steps to every judgement is the effort to exclude the intrusive self. Realism on the contrary, consists in ignoring the existence of self and hence regarding one's own perspective as immediately objective and absolute. Realism is thus anthropocentric illusion, finality - in short, all those illusions which teem in the history of science. So long as thought has not become conscious of self, it is a prey to perpetual confusion between objective and subjective, between the real and the ostensible.
(Piaget, 1972)
And this is why postmodernists don't contribute anything of value to the philosophy of science. This "view from nowhere" that myopic realists supposedly subscribe to is a strawman.
Nice, can't wait for it to load.
The quotes from McClintock which Keller abuses at 29:29 would probably be seen as very different if she were quoting a man.
I can imagine if a man described his test subjects like this he would be portrayed as an semi-autistic victim of masculinity who can only show affection and empathy towards inanimate objects.
Can't wait for part 3. Amazing work
You need to get in touch with Jordan Peterson for a convo! That would be great to listen to/watch. It would also boost your exposure.
i did not know it was possible to love a human being this much
I have never heard of this feminist empiricism before, and I am a third wave feminist. I don't think this kind of relativistic approach or perspective to understanding the natural universe is a widely respected or accepted view among feminists and liberals in general. But the belief in the objectivity of science has contributed for a long time into belief or acceptance as fact in what is now considered pseudoscientific ideas such as race theory, phrenology, medical theories about female hysteria and even sexist, completely unproven theories such as penis envy and Oedipus complex (ok, these are psychological theories, and not widely accepted today, but people used to think these ideas were credible. U can argue that psychology isn't actually science, but the point still stands. And besides, many people do consider psychology to be a branch of science due to its heavy reliance on experimentation and also on knowledge of the physiology and chemical and hormonal processes of the human brain) Another example is demonstrated in a Guardian article, 'Here’s one example Fine offers of Testosterone Rex mangling the way we think about sex. In the 1940s, biologist Angus Bateman conducted a series of experiments on fruit flies that appeared to show conclusively that competition between males for “fertile female vessels” was the driving force of evolution. The hypothesis goes something like this: laying eggs is a more substantial physical investment than producing sperm. Therefore, to maximise reproductive success, females should be selective and cautious while males should be promiscuous and competitive; therefore, women are domestic and monogamous, while men are thrusting away both in the public sphere and in as many beds as possible.
It’s elegant, it’s intuitive, and it’s wrong. Bateman’s experiments were biased by design and by his unexplained exclusion of data that, when included in a recent reanalysis, actually showed that males and females both produced more offspring when they had more mates. But there are limits to promiscuity as a strategy: taking into account female fertility, a man has more chance of being hit by a meteor than fathering 100 children with 100 different women in a year. The player who says it’s in his genes is missing a vital part of the story.' www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine
This is a demonstration that the idea that science is always unbiased, impartial and objective deserves some scrutiny and can be exploited to perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices (such as the idea black people are on average less intelligent than white people based on IQ test scores)
The reason why it is too much of a stretch to say science is always impartial and objective is while science does provide a mechanism for theories to be revised, disposed of if evidence proves the theory to be wrong, flawed human logic can affect the way data from experiments and observation are explained and interpreted and put in a coherent theory or hypothesis. Obviously the data itself which is used can be deeply flawed, horrendously cherrypicked, etc but the interpretation of the result can also be flawed e.g. conflating correlation with causation.
but there is no such thing as 'black' knowledge or 'female' knowledge or science. The scientific method is still the same no matter in what social context it is used, or who employs it. And it is absolutely can disprove many claims about the reality of the universe and the natural laws and forces that govern it e.g. that spirits inhabit trees and plants and help them grow. But it is completely irrelevant to sociological issues like how racial and gender prejudices affect society and the way different social groups relate to each other, which is the main focus of liberal academia and the liberal mainstream. Why? Because things like race theory and feminism grew as movements to change social dynamics and attitudes and social power structures, NOT to propose their own forms of epistemology. Science, though it can be flawed, remains the best form and method of epistemology in understanding the natural world, but using science to study the dynamics of human societies isn't particularly useful. You cannot argue that science is completely relativistic and subjective, of course that is not true. But you cannot argue that the scientific process is completely impartial and unbiased either. Though science can often be distorted by people for various reasons, thereby completely misrepresenting scientific research and scientific theories, the distortion or flawed interpretation of information, data can occur during the process in which a theory is posited in an attempt to explain the information or data (or prove something which you always intended to prove was true so you can justify your belief) www.icr.org/article/darwins-teaching-womens-inferiority/
Speechless, ......
This was really enlightening, and gives me much more perspective as to what people have been categorizing as 'feminists' on the internet lately. It confused me a lot as to why everyone suddenly hated feminism so virulently.
But, as I commented on your other video, I think it's irresponsible to take such a ridiculous caricature of feminism and tar an entire movement in it. It seems to me like you'd have to be mentally deficient to actually believe stuff like this, but that doesn't mean that feminism doesn't have a long history and very valid points, and is still relevant today.
This debate would be lot more interesting if both sides went to the specifics, it's way too abstract to be empiric at all.
Please finish the series !!!!!
Sure does grind my gears when people insult the memories of the dead by quotemining them.
Thoughtful and well explained.
Congratulations!
As always well researched and structured. Well done!
A favorite is one of the founders of the philosophy of science, Kevin Bacon
Can't avoid a comparison between this and presuppositional apologetics.
I feel bad for you having to wade through this nonsense, thanks for doing it so I don't have to!
It makes me think of Feynman's essay on Cargo Cult Science.
This is fantastic work!
I cannot believe that people like Keller were ever taken seriously. I cannot believe that they are taken seriously now.
Please make dozen more of these videos! I love them!
Is it a rule that every post-modernist paper must contain a sentence along the lines of “as so-and-so observed”?
I fucking love this series! never stop! great work!