‘Liberals’ respect the science: Until it contradicts them

Caption: Now, don’t go offending them with that hurtful evidence

To paraphrase the great Richard Feynman, it doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, if it doesn’t agree with the evidence, it’s wrong. For modern ?liberals?, though, evidence counts for nothing: its?only ideology that matters.

Not that this is anything new: Marxists liked to claim that their ideological gibberish was ?science?. All evidence to the contrary was dismissed as ?bourgeois science? which, by definition, was wrong. The crackpot obsessions of ?Marxist scientist? Trofim Lysenko were promoted, despite overwhelming evidence that he was simply and utterly wrong. The result of this triumph of ideology over evidence was that hundreds of scientists had their careers ruined and work trashed, and millions starved to death in the Soviet Union and China.

Luckily, the contemporary left isn?t sending anyone to the gulags – yet. But the pullulation of Marxist-inspired nonsense in academia is trashing good science. Quote:

The University of Washington School of Computer Science is dismissing the science behind sex differences after a professor argued that men and women are different. End of quote.

The inherent biological differences between men and women are well-established. But to admit that would pull the rug out from under the Marxist conceit that humans are infinitely malleable. It would especially destroy the contemporary Marxist obsession with erasing the biological basis of sex/gender (contrary to assertions, the terms are indeed synonymous) altogether. Quote:

The controversy began on June 19, when UW-Seattle Professor Stuart Reges argued in an essay for Quillette that women are less likely to pursue computer science degrees due to sex differences in career preferences, as well as verbal and mathematical reasoning.

?If men and women are different, then we should expect them to make different choices,? Reges wrote, going on to summarize the findings of a University of Pittsburgh study, a study published by the National Academy of Science, and one from Leeds Beckett University. End of quote.

These differences are deeply embedded in human biology. Even our genetic cousins, primates, show strong sex-based preferences for toys, for instance. Boy monkeys prefer trucks, girl monkeys play with dolls. Even in the wild, young female chimps will carry sticks as rudimentary dolls.

None of this says that either sex is better than the other. They?re just, broadly speaking, different. Nor does it say anything about individuals of either sex. Individual females may be brilliant mathematicians or computer scientists. Individual males may excel at caring for children. But, as a group, specific preferences are distinctly observable. Quote:

These studies discovered, respectively, that women have broader academic interests due to their higher verbal ability, that women are choosing not to enter STEM fields, and that countries with the most gender equality have the least women entering STEM.

Reges concluded that ?Women can code, but often they don?t want to. We will never reach gender parity,? though he did concede during an interview with Campus Reform that parity might be reached in the case of Orwellian social engineering. End of quote.

And there it is: Orwellian social engineering. It?s what the Marxist-inspired left lives and breathes. Quote:

[UW School of Science] Spokeswoman Kristin Osborn?declined to clarify if the research had been reviewed before it was condemned.

?We disagree with the assertion that gender differences and preferences [help] explain the disparity between men and women in computer science and engineering.?

When Campus Reform asked whether school officials had actually read the data Reges was citing, Osborn replied that ?The source data used in the piece is not our concern.? End of quote.

Of course, it?s not their concern. They?re not interested in data, they only want to be told what they?ve decided they already know. The left love to piously boast about how much they ?f-ing love science?, and deride conservatives as anti-science religious dogmatists. But, as I?ve previously written on Whaleoil, the left are hopelessly biased when science contradicts their ideological nonsense. Quote:

Speaking to Campus Reform by phone, Reges expressed confusion that an institution dedicated to scientific inquiry would dismiss an academic?s conclusions without reviewing the research those conclusions are based upon.

?This is what science should be about. UW already decided based on ideology, not science, that they disagree with my conclusions,? Reges asserted.

?When you’re sure you know the right answer before you even look at evidence to the contrary, you cease to be a scientist.? End of quote.

29%
×