this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
2 points (57.1% liked)

Skeptic

1290 readers
1 users here now

A community for Scientific Skepticism:

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.

Things we like:

Things we don't like:

Other communities of interest:

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
kabe@lemmy.world
2
The Ideological Subversion of Biology (skepticalinquirer.org)
submitted 5 months ago by Streetlights@lemmy.world to c/skeptic@lemmy.world
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Excellent essay from Coyne and Maroja that picks apart six widespread examples of biology being corrupted by (often well-intentioned) ideology.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That’s not a contradiction because a binary with some exceptions is not, therefore, a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuously varying attribute like height. An individual can move along the height spectrum. There is no continuous variable in mammalian sex;

Yes there is, there is a wide array of variation among the "exceptions" as you call them.

there are only two discrete gametes.

They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.

You may as well say humans aren’t bipedal because some individuals have one leg or none. But to describe human locomotion as a spectrum would be laughably misleading. And why corrupt the language in this way? Ideology, of course.

Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum? That would not be misleading at all. Yes it is an ideology, but so is your position. Ideology is not inherently a bad thing.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.

Of course it is. The very opening line of the article states:

"Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals..."

clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.

It’s worth a read and it’s not terribly long. Always worth to have ideas challenged.

It is not always worth having ideas challenged. I am happy to have my ideas challenged but I'm not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is. The only response to a Gish gallop is not to engage.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.

It's not my definition of course. And the binary nature of mammalian sex "marginalises" no one. Does the binocular vision of mammals marginalise the blind? Mammals have two kidneys but people born with renal agenesis have one or none, and yet no one is arguing that the mammalian renal system "is a spectrum". Why use such obfuscatory language?

Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum?

Because that would be factually incorrect at every level. Humans are bipedal. Canis lupis is quadropedal. If you describe both as having "spectral locomotive" properties, you have no language to distinguish between them. It is a ludicrous exercise in semantics that adds nothing to the explanatory power of science and only diminishes it.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.

Of course it is "Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals..."

clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.

You may be shocked to learn that "non-scientists" also read scientific journals and may also care about proper allocation of research funding. I am not a professional (or amateur even) tennis player yet the governance of the sport is of interest to me and many other "non-tennis" players.

It is not always worth having ideas challenged.

Oh no, it is always worth it. JS Mill makes the case for the vital necessity of dissent in 'on liberty' which is far too long to paste here but should he added to anyone's reading list.

i'm not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is.

Then why engage? Why profess your desire to remain ignorant of the text? It adds nothing. Simply hold your peace and move on.